incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Hollmichel <>
Subject Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 15:05:56 GMT
Hi all,

If both parties (ASF, TDF) agree, I could imagine that team openoffice 
is willing to provide funds for an independent location, but at the same 
time I'm wondering whether such neutral zone is wanted and makes sense ? 
What I really don't like to see is a third location for 
gets established, that would not be the right sign,


Am 25.10.2011 13:03, schrieb Simon Phipps:
> On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:55, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> I tried to be ambiguous with fork/"downstream". There is a relationship, and whether
it originates as a fork, upstream, downstream, or upside-down relationship the relationship
*IS* a *PEER* relationship. (auf Deutsch, ist klar?)
> :-)  I just want to make clear that, listening to both sides of this issue, it is very
easy (on both sides) for people to use language that is unintentionally inflammatory and then
treat the other party as at fault when they react to it...
>> So, this could be a true point of co-operation, there was a thread about this and
it did have some good ideas.
>> Extensions and especially templates are likely to compatible.
> This isn't a given. By the time AOOo makes an end-user release, there are likely to be
substantial differences and a shared  add-ons repo would probably need to distinguish strongly
between the two projects. Still worth considering though, I agree.
>> Given the licensing issues with Apache hosting it does make more sense for the TDF
to host these.
> TDF won't host closed extensions though, so the combined (TDF + Apache) repo would still
hold less than the current repo.
>> No technical reasons why the DNS for these couldn't point to servers
hosted by the TDF.
> Maybe this is a compromise solution for the security list too?  make it
and point the MX at a TDF server?
> S.

View raw message