incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS]: hosting of source code that doesn't belong to the office directly
Date Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:07:25 GMT
I've not seen any discussion of IP management in these extensions. All
contributions would have to be made with an ICLA on file, all licenses
would have to be acceptable and releases would have to be managed properly.
Similarly development of the choose would be community led. Does the PPMC
want to take on this responsibility? Will authors of these "extensions"
want to work this way?

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 3, 2011 9:01 PM, "Andrea Pescetti" <> wrote:

> On 30/11/2011 J├╝rgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 11/30/11 1:31 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> Maybe just call it "extensions" ? This could be the root for
>>> "standard extensions" that are produced by this project. Some might
>>> be app dev related. But we might have other standard extensions in the
>>> future, e.g., a CMIS extension using Apache Chemistry.
>> i thought about "extensions" but in this particular case it is not an
>> extension in the classical manner. But it is a developer tool for
>> extensions and could be of course hosted there as well.
> Then it would be clearer to use "extensions" for stuff that will
> eventually be packaged into .oxt files, and "tools" or "devtools" for the
> current use case, which is much more relaed to development than to
> extensions. Not that I have a strong opinion on this; "extensions" just
> seems potentially confusing for an editor plugin.
> Regards,
>  Andrea.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message