incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:20:44 GMT

On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ross Gardler
>> <> wrote:
>>> On 6 January 2012 16:31, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Ross Gardler
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:49, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler
>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:03, Rob Weir <>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying you *will* be allowed to host them, I'm
saying you
>>>>>>>>> *may* be allowed to. Similarly, I'm asking you, and others,
to stop
>>>>>>>>> saying you *won't* be able to host them.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Lets continue to focus on what the AOO *wants* not what some
of us
>>>>>>> perceive is *allowed*. Once we know what is wanted we can explore
>>>>>>> is possible.
>>>>>> OK.  So if we want to host the extensions site, as is, and have it
>>>>>> conform to some revised ASF policy, then we would need to be able
>>>>>> do things like:
>>>>>> 1) Host GPL extensions on Apache servers, using websites associated
>>>>>> with Apache products, using Apache trademarks.  In other words,
>>>>>> without the distance the Board has encouraged the use of Apache-Extras
>>>>>> for in the past.
>>>>> That is not a correct summary of the ASFs position. We do not
>>>>> *develop* software that is under any licence other than ALv2 (go to
>>>>> apache-extras). As far as I understand it the extensions site does not
>>>>> provide development support.
>>>>> We do not distribute incompatibly licensed code that might restrict
>>>>> the rights of our downstream users to *modify* the source of our
>>>>> projects. Since none of the extensions will be bundled with AOO
>>>>> releases this is not relevant.
>>>> You seem to be saying that anything not forbidden may be allowed.
>>> No, I'm saying that as a mentor of the AOO podling, as a long standing Member
of The Apache Software Foundation and as a current VP of the foundation I believe that I have
a pretty good feel for why things are the way they are. This allows me to, with reasonable
confidence, guess at what would be allowed and what would not.
>> As always, thanks Ross for your mentor's wise words of advise.  But I
>> personally am having difficulties determining sometimes whether you
>> are merely giving mentorly advice versus actively advocating, like a
>> PMC member, for one particular outcome over another.   If your intent
>> really is to argue against the SF proposal (which is how it looks to
>> me) then maybe we can just get a clean, unadorned argument for that
>> position, one with fewer hats.  So far I've seen no one else but you
>> argue that position, so it would be good for the overall discussion to
>> hear it, from you personally.  I think that would be allowed,  right?
> I'm reading this thread. The message is that ASF policy is flexible to a certain extent.
It is not like a corporation's policy which is likely to be bureaucratically inflexible. Rob,
would you please try to get used to that ;-)
> The proposal is now somewhat buried in this long thread.
> There are issues to decide.
> (1) What is the AOO vision of extensions, templates in the longer term (or even AOO 3.4)?
> (2) How do we get Extensions and Templates stable?
> (3) How do we disconnect E and T from using Oracle infrastructure for userids and passwords?

One more point - extensions are critical for Native Language support and some language packs
are only available with an incompatible license.

>>> At the very least, I know the boundaries of my knowledge and I know who to ask
once I know what to ask. Hence this thread.
> Thank you!
> Regards,
> Dave
>>> Ross

View raw message