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 03:09:14 GMT
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>> On Aug 20, 2012 8:33 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>>> > I would also state that continuing to argue is symptomatic of a
>>> > failure to understand and integrate with the Foundation's thoughts on
>>> > the matter. Or to at least politely discuss the situation on
>>> > legal-discuss.
>>> I would say the lack of understanding could be in both directions, and
>>> some greater tolerance  would be mutually beneficial.
>> I *am* being tolerant (you should see my intolerant emails). And what makes
>> you believe that I don't understand? I get to offer my thoughts, and you do
>> not get to say that I have a "lack of understanding" simply because you
>> disagree.
>>> Remember, OpenOffice is unlike anything else previously at Apache.
>> Duh. Don't be so patronizing.
> Greg,  I am certain that you are well-informed of the details about
> OpenOffice and its history.  But for the benefit of IPMC members and
> observers who may have followed this less closely I thought that a
> brief summary would be welcome.  I apologize if you thought it was
> unnecessary.
>> Again: I suggest the discussion about making authorized/authenticated
>> binaries be moved to legal-discuss. Not here. Infrastructure may need to
>> provide some input, too.
> Do you have a specific question we should be asking legal affairs
> and/or infrastructure?
> We have already had extensive discussions on legal-discuss, including
> discussions about specific dependencies that are only included in
> binary form in our binary artifacts, per ASF policy.  These
> discussions were in the context of releases that included source and
> binaries.  I don't recall hearing any concerns raised in principle
> about releasing binaries along with source.   The guidance from Legal
> Affairs was focused more on the permissible dependencies and required
> form for LICENSE and NOTICE and copyright statement in the binaries.
> But if you have a specific license-related question we should resolve
> with them, please let me know what it is.  I'd be more than happy to
> check with them.
> As for Infrastructure, we've also had extensive discussions with them
> on the specific topic of distributing the binaries. There was an
> initial sizing, a poll of the mirror operators and a determination
> that the storage and bandwidth would be too great for many of the
> mirror operators.  So a separate list of mirror operators was created
> who could handle our dist, and this subset rsync's with the OpenOffice
> dist.
> Also, SourceForge volunteered to provide us access to their
> distribution network.  This was approved by VP, Infrastructure.  As of

A slight correction.  We collaborated with SourceForge on two
projects:  hosting the extensions and templates websites as well as
mirror the distributions.

The records show that Sam OK'ed handing over the templates and
extensions to SourceForge [1], but for the mirroring this go-head we
received was from Joe.



> our AOO 3.4.0 release the majority of the downloads for the binaries
> does not involve Apache Infra at all, but goes through SourceForge.
> But the source downloads, as well as the downloads of the hashes and
> detached signatures does go through the normal ASF mirror network.
> Again, I'm not aware of an open question we have for Infra related to
> the proposed AOO 3.4.1 podling release.  If they had an issue I know
> they would not be shy about raising it with us.  But if you have
> something specific that you think we should ask them, please let me
> know.  I would be delighted to check with them.
>> I might also point you to Sam's recommendation to avoid over-posting to a
>> thread as a way to dominate / get your way. How many emails are you up to
>> so far?
> I'm trying to determine what your substantive issues are and to
> resolve them to your satisfaction. If you want to hear less of me,
> then please get to the point and say what your concerns are and what
> exactly would resolve it.
> Regards,
> -Rob
>> -g

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

View raw message