incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:13:59 GMT
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:59 PM, drew <> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 17:01 -0700, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM, drew <> wrote:
>> > Well, for myself, I don't have a problem with the AOO project not having
>> > official binary releases - in such a circumstance I would strongly
>> > prefer no binary release at all.
>> I wonder who might step into the breach to provide binaries for such a
>> package...
> Hi,
> Well, for a start:
> IBM stated it will release a free binary version at some point, after
> shutting down the Symphony product.

This is incorrect.  Wearing my IBM hat I can say that our plan is not
to ship our own binary version at all, but to ship the Apache version
bundled with some proprietary extension modules that would help our
customers work with our server stack.  I don't think we've ever said

> CS2C, a Chinese firm working in cooperation with Ernest and Young IIRC,
> releases a binary based on the source code - in fact I'm not even sure
> AOO supplied binaries are available to most folks in China.
> Multiracio releases a closed source version of the application for sale
> in Europe and the US.
> In the past quite a few Linux distributors included binary releases in
> their offerings, they consume source not binaries.
> The current BSD, OS/2 and Solaris ports will go out as source only from
> AOO, but come to end users from a third party repository, unless I
> totally missed what was happening there (and I might off ;)
> There are currently two groups which offer binary versions packaged to
> run off USB drives, as far as I understand it, they work from source and
> don't require binaries.

My understanding is the portable versions work from the binaries, not
the source.  They rebuild the install portions only.   This is similar
to a variety of distributions (not ports) in the ecosystem.  There is
a lot you can do by taking the OpenOffice binaries and rebuilding the
install set with different extensions, templates, etc.  This is far
easier than rebuilding from source.

> Finally this is a well known brand now, it would be hard to believe that
> if AOO did not release binaries the void would not be filled by others.

Indeed.  Also, if we didn't release source either then someone else
would fill the void, probably Microsoft.


> //drew
> ps - sorry if this double posts...
>> > On the other hand if there is a binary release from the AOO project then
>> > I believe it should be treated as a fully endorsed action.
>> At the ASF, the source release is canonical.  I have never seen anyone assert
>> that the source release is not offical and endorsed by the ASF.
>> There has been disagreement about whether binaries should be official or not.
>> To the best of my knowledge, every time the matter has come up, the debate has
>> been resolved with a compromise: that while binary releases are not endorsed
>> by the ASF, they may be provided in addition to the source release for the
>> "convenience" of users.
>> What is different with AOO is that the compromise does not seem to satisfy
>> an element within the PPMC and thus the matter is being forced.
>> It would be a lot of hard, time-consuming work for the ASF to build the
>> institutions necessary to provide binary releases that approach the standards
>> our source releases set.  (As illustrated by e.g. the challenges of setting up
>> the code signing service.)  Not all of us are convinced that it is for the
>> best, either.
>> Marvin Humphrey
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message