Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of
 martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com designates 209.85.215.175 as permitted
 sender)
Message-ID: <4EA6D054.10704@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 17:05:56 +0200
From: Martin Hollmichel <martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Neutral / shared security list ...
References: <1319037389.83728.YahooMailMobile@web113502.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
 <CAA4ffp8Ds25ExcE9O_GTR0h3id6m2ZCNMRxDne57kt-gtpvj_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksohpfGdgTGF1Ayswo8Gn2s9BQ_S7QdMx0eDjDDs3QRPX2A@mail.gmail.com>
 <A4CD6A49-3214-47D3-A742-682AAAE80C85@webmink.com>
 <34F3347E-B725-4C74-893F-2928417C448C@comcast.net>
 <8B104105-0BA2-4CBD-A2BF-C9BC28698CE0@webmink.com>
 <4D617A26-D7D8-4D3A-B771-77078FE9E00C@comcast.net>
 <F04B39BC-0D16-4F0B-977B-A1100A9D4C45@webmink.com>
In-Reply-To: <F04B39BC-0D16-4F0B-977B-A1100A9D4C45@webmink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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 OpenOffice.org 
gets established, that would not be the right sign,

Martin

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 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.
>