incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com>
Subject Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:32:34 GMT
IMHO, if we're discussing a non-Apache release then let's discuss it
on a non Apache dev list.  You've listed some plausible reasons why
volunteers might want to work on an OOo release on the legacy
infrastructure.   OK. Great.  The discussion lists at OOo are part of
that infrastructure.

Also, we need to consider the OpenOffice.org trademark.  If a
non-Apache project wishes to name their release "OpenOffice.org" then
they will need to make a formal request to Apache for this and get it
approved.  Perhaps a mere formality in this case, but a necessary one.

-Rob

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> An Apache release while in incubation is a goal, perhaps even
> a blocker for graduation for ooo, but it shouldn't come at a cost
> of abandoning existing user needs for a lengthy period of time.
> The ASF is a pragmatic bunch, and realizes that this project
> is coming in with over a decade of prior history attached.
>
> That history will now merge with ASF objectives, but it doesn't
> have to be immediately all-or-nothing.  If the user community expects
> a forthcoming release in a timely fashion, and that cannot be
> accomplished as a full ASF release, then other avenues (like
> collaboration with OO regarding distribution) can and should
> be explored.
>
> (IMO).
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Rob Weir <apache@robweir.com>
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; dennis.hamilton@acm.org
>> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 8:17:58 PM
>> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>  wrote:
>> > Oh right, I said to myself knowingly, especially since any  release under the
>>old infrastructure is essentially an LGPL release.  And it  would be an
>>opportunity for cooperation.
>> >
>> > Uh, wait, I then said  to myself, how do we get that back under Apache
>>OpenOffice.org unless we manage to have it  covered under the Oracle grant. Hmm.
>> >
>> > And what do we do about the  work that Armand Le Grand has been busily
>>continuing in the old infrastructure.   He can recontribute that, of course,
>>but, uh ...
>> >
>> > Um, say again,  this might work out how?
>> >
>>
>>
>> I don't see it.  What are the  hallmarks of an Apache release?
>>
>> 1) Apache 2.0 license
>>
>> 2) IP check  list
>>
>> 3) Provenance assured by allowing repository access only to  Committers
>> who have signed the ICLA
>>
>> 4) Work done transparently on the  Apache lists.
>>
>> In fact, if you follow the general.incubator.a.o list  you'll see the
>> Incubation PMC close to shutting down another Podling because  they are
>> not doing their work at Apache, but are doing it  elsewhere.
>>
>> Yes, getting to a first Apache release will require  work.  But we only
>> get there by doing the work.  I don't see how  releasing something
>> outside of Apache gets us any closer to an Apache  release.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> >  - Dennis
>> >
>> > PS: LibreOffice is  currently at releases 3.3.3 (presumed stable) and 3.4.0
>>(early adopter) with a  3.4.1 release candidate or two currently under test. I
>>think there are 3.5 and  4.0 mumbles too, but my eyes have glazed over and I've
>>given up tracking the  pace of builds there.
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >  From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:joe_schaefer@yahoo.com]
>> > Sent:  Monday, July 04, 2011 06:19
>> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >  Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure
>> >
>> > The  other thing I probably should mention here is that this
>> > presents a  golden opportunity to collaborate with LO should the
>> > "old" ooo  infrastructure be considered unable to handle
>> > another ooo  release.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message ----
>> >>  From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer@yahoo.com>
>> >>  To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >>  Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:11:09 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4  on the old infrastructure
>> >>
>> >> Point of reference:  the  subversion project used non-ASF  infrastructure
>> >> to conduct releases  that would've been blocked by ASF policy  on licensing
>> >>
>> >>  had they used our mirror system.  It is certainly  possible to do  the
>> >> same sort of thing with ooo for an interim solution, until  the  codebase
>> >> has been "cleaned up" to meet with ASF  policy.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > [ ... ]
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Mime
View raw message