corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only
Date Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:39:23 GMT
> On 22 Dec 2014, at 12:47 am, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> I am not clear on to what degree Corinthia Source releases will allow building of binaries
that are end-user meaningful and working in anything more than console sessions.  This proposal
is intended to anticipate the prospect of the code being compilable to store "apps" and GUI-based
end-user applications on many form factors and platforms.  This proposal is particularly relevant
to cases where forks will compete for monetization, including via embedded advertising and
also sales through search-engine optimization and purchased ad placement.
> 
> PROPOSAL
> 
> Corinthia project source code releases and the source-code repository shall build to
"white box" binaries and distributions/deployments with default branding as unsupported Corinthia
development editions (stable or otherwise).  Provisions for branding of a distribution (and
distributions of forks) will be incorporated and given default settings.  This also extends
to producing digitally-signed versions designed to satisfy certification requirements for
introduction into software "app" stores.  There may be instructions for how to successfully
build a branded and supported authentic distribution, but one should not be directly obtainable
using the stable source without modification.

I think a precursor to this is us determining what exactly Corinthia *is*. My view (and I
realise others may differ) is that it is first and foremost a collection of libraries from
which one can build end-user applications (be they commercial or open source), rather than
an application in and of itself (which is a key difference from OpenOffice). While application
develop has been discussed as part of the effort - and I agree is within the scope of what
we are doing - I think we risk confusion if we try and use the Corinthia name to refer to
a particular application.

I see Corinthia as an umbrella project for several different “artifacts” - libraries,
applications, and documentation/compliance sheets. One of those artefacts, and the one that
has bee discussed almost exclusively to date, is DocFormats. Another artefact, recently contributed
but not yet discussed much, is the javascript editing library (which can’t operate by itself
but needs a “shell” around it to be useful). There will be applications (sample apps and/or
end-user apps) added to this, and possibly additional libraries.

So I would suggest that rather than thinking of Corinthia as an end-user application like
OO, we can have apps with other names that utilise the libraries that are part of Corinthia,
but have different names. If we were trying to replace OpenOffice, a white box/white label
“Corinthia” app that users can download and run would make sense; but I don’t think
that’s what we’re doing here.

—
Dr Peter M. Kelly
pmkelly@apache.org

PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key>
(fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message