incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 15:55:14 GMT
On 6 January 2012 15:35, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ross Gardler


>> As an IPMC member I would be concerned about a promise of breaking the
>> Sourceforge stranglehold on the extensions site for the reasons I
>> express above (ASF cannot benefit one organisation over another).
>> However, I am only a single member of the IPMC and others may not have
>> the same concerns.
> "Stranglehold"?  I think that inflammatory term is not apt.   There
> are other catalogs of OpenOffice extensions and templates.

I agree my language is too strong. Even without considering the fact
that there are other catalogues as you point out.

>> That being said, I had assumed that shipped AOO code would point to a
>> single, or even default site. Although the financial gain is not the
>> same I see this as being comparable to Firefox shipping with Google as
>> the default search engine. Mozilla can do this because of their legal
>> structure, the ASF cannot.
> I believe we're talking about the website, not the product.

I seem to have been misunderstanding something about how the
extensions manager works. My fault for making assumptions. I imagined
it listing all available extensions within the application, However,
having actually looked at it, I see I am actually presented with a
single link to the extensions site. Sorry, I should have looked
earlier, would have saved us some time.

If that link were pointing at SF then I would be concerned me
(remember we are talking about at the point of graduation). If it
links to a website with multiple catalogues listed, or if there are
multiple links within the product my concern is no longer valid. Such
a modification is easy to make, even for 3.3.

Thanks for putting me straight.

> When we talked in the past about enabling the product to point to an
> extension website, I think the thought was that we'd point to an
> Apache catalog that contained only officially released extensions,
> e.g., ALv2, QA'ed, voted on by PMC, etc.  That would be the safe thing
> to do.  With a public, open extension repository we cannot really even
> vouch for them being entirely free of malware.  It is really "as-is"
> with a big disclaimer.  So it would probably not be appropriate for us
> to point to them by default in the product.  (That was Dennis's
> concern, as I understand it);.

Yes, this is the long term strategy we've been discussing and I think
it is a healthy goal. But does the AOO podling really want to limit it
to ALv2?


View raw message