incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:31:32 GMT
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 <> 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.

You seem to be saying that anything not forbidden may be allowed.  I
disagree.  For example, what if we wanted to sell "Re-elect Barack
Obama" umbrellas on an online store front at openoffice,org?   This
would not be "developing" software.  So it is allowed?  Of course not.
 You need to refer back to the Foundation's charitable mission, which
is not infinite in scope, by its charter and by law.  I'd question
whether the scope does in fact include distributing non OSS software
and even facilitating the collection of payment for the same.  This is
a Foundation question, not an IPMC one.  The question is far broader
than the copyleft versus non-copyleft question that the IPMC deals
with on a regular basis.

> 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?

Yes.  For a particular extension.  That is what we have in at least
one instance today.

> 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
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective

View raw message