incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
Subject Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
Date Tue, 25 Oct 2011 11:03:44 GMT

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 openoffice.org 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 coordination@security.openoffice.org
and point the MX at a TDF server?

S.


Mime
View raw message