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 16:20:11 GMT
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 <> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> 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 what
>> 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 to
> 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.

As a by-product of these two policies we do not, at present,
distribute any incompatible binaries under normal circumstances. This
is the part that we would need to get approval. Remember that this
approval has been delegated to the IPMC and anyone in this community
can seek it at any time.

As for using Apache trademarks we have a policy that, in my opinion,
will cover the vast majority of cases for the extensions site (there
might be a need to ask maintainers to update their sites and the PPMC
will have to take ownership of this. This will be the case wherever
the extension is hosted. How effective the PPMC can be in this matter
is a different issue, but since it is not affected by the location of
the hosting it is irrelevant in this discussion, I think.

> 2) Similarly, the repository currently includes non OSS extensions,
> including demos of proprietary extensions, and various forms of
> demoware and trialware extensions.  We would need permission to host
> these, again, on Apache servers that bear trademarked names, e.g., an
> website.

As with 1) above.

> 3) Similarly we have at least one case today where the extension
> website hosts a Paypal link for collecting money for an extension.  We
> would need permission from the Board to host 3rd party revenue
> collection links on Apache servers using domain names associated with
> ASF-owned trademarks.

It's hard for me to understand this one as the extensions site is down
and so I can't see any examples. Are you saying the ASF extensions
site would have a webpage with a paypal link (or similar), where the
payment goes to some third party maintaining the extension?

This one is a little harder. On the one hand I would say that as long
as the trademark policy was enforced for these extensions then it
would be fine. On the other hand, if the AOO PPMC is deciding who
can/can not be listed there is a potential for conflict here. I'd like
to get further guidance on this.

> I still happen to
> think, for other reasons that I've stated, that opening this up and
> encouraging the broader ecosystem is the better way to do it, rather
> than enforcing an Apache stranglehold.

HA!!! I see you chose to throw the inflammatory language back at me,
fair enough ;-)

Seriously though, I have no objection to this being the outcome of
this conversation. I agree there are some clear advantages. I just
want to be certain that conclusion is drawn from the right facts.

> But in parallel with that
> discussion let's establish the policy change possibilities, so we're
> not arguing on top of mush.

Agreed. I remind the community of the purpose of this thread, from my
first mail:

"Once you've digested and debated the offer from Sourceforge the
community needs to come up with a couple of paragraphs indicating a
desired route forwards and reasons for it. I will try and attend the
appropriate board meeting in order to answer any questions that arise."

We've gone a very long way to coming to those couple of paras, this
policy issue was a minor diversion that I think is now over.


Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)

View raw message