incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [www] Any Drupal guru's lurking? ( was : Ext / Temp repository stability ( was Extensions and templates site down ))
Date Tue, 16 Aug 2011 20:36:51 GMT
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:14 PM, drew <> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 16:02 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Joe Schaefer <> wrote:
>> > It just needs to be cleared by legal/board.
>> > While hosting non-OSS plugins is probably out,
>> > I don't see why we can't host OSS ones here
>> > especially if we don't change the dns from
>> > to
>> >
>> > We already host which provides
>> > a similar service for httpd modules.  One essential
>> > implementation difference is that the downloads aren't
>> > served by us, we just point users at the offsite
>> > sources and only host metadata.  Technically that's
>> > probably what I'd like to see happen to the ooo
>> > extensions site as well before bringing it in house.
>> >
>> We had talked on another thread about a longer-term approach where we
>> would host a registry of externally-hosted extensions.  That kind of
>> solutions has a lot of attractive qualities.
>> Do you know anything about the http modules registry, e.g., where the
>> code is?  That might be something we could use to jump-start an
>> extensions registry.  It has the basics.
> Alright - If I may just ask a couple of question.
> There is a current site, not on ASF or Oracle hardware, that site needs
> work, now then:
> Is there some reason why the current OSUOSL site can not be used going
> forward?

Permission wise?  If it is not on Apache Infrastructure, then it is
not an Apache server, and I don't think Apache would care much.

The "gotcha" here is the trademark and the domain name.  Namely, our
website points to the extension site via an URL
( and the extension site
uses the trademark.

So if we treat it like an external website, not controlled by Apache,
then we need to get the trademark use into conformance with Apache
policy.  The experts can correct me, but the following steps might be

1) Links from Apache-controlled websites the extensions site should
come with a disclaimer saying something along the lines of:

"The Apache project does not officially endorse or
maintain the extensions hosted at XXX.  If there are any problems with
or questions about the extensions please go XXX"

2) The PPMC, in conjunction with Apache Branding, could review and
approve the use of the trademark and logo by the
extension website, provided it carries a prominent disclaimer along
the lines of the above.

3)  We could redirect to the OSUOSL
for a period of time, but they should start using and promoting a new
URL, perhaps even a new domain name for the extensions.

Personally, I'd like to see us move to a distributed registry
approach, as was discussed earlier in the thread [1].  But that does
nothing to help with the immediate need for increased availability of
the site.


> I just have not heard that states as such.
> //drew

View raw message