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 15:03:54 GMT
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
> On 6 January 2012 13:53, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:
>>> On 6 January 2012 09:32, Andrea Pescetti <> wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2012 Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>>>> 2012/1/4 Jürgen Schmidt:
>>> ...
>>>> Sounds good. The stabilization phase can be done anywhere, but as Rob wrote
>>>> if we cannot keep the current repository as part of the project anyway, it
>>>> makes sense to do it as part of a larger effort.
>>> Can we please put a stop to this meme. Nobody has said that it *can't*
>>> be kept as part of the project. I have no idea why this keeps getting
>>> repeated. There are issues to be addressed, but nobody has said we
>>> can't address them. That's what this thread is about, creating a
>>> proposal for the board to consider and give us an indication as to
>>> whether it would be acceptable or not.
>> If by "repository" you mean merely the software that hosts the
>> repository, then you are correct.  If by "repository" you mean also
>> all of the extensions and templates that are hosted in the repository,
>> including GPL, trialware, demoware and other commercial, non OSS
>> extensions, then I think Juergen is correct.
> I mean distributing the extensions from ASF hardware, including the
> licence incompatible ones.
> To my knowledge nobody has said that this cannot be done at the ASF in
> the long term. What has been said is that current policy does not
> allow for it. Permission is granted to serve them here during
> incubation and the resolution of the policy issue has been delegated
> to the IPMC.
> Nobody has said what the conclusion of the IPMC will be longer term
> and, to my knowledge, nobody has asked either.
>> In fact we've been told
>> that this would be an issue for graduation.
> One of us is mistaken. Please point me to a mail that says anything
> other than the *policy* issues need to be resolved.
> 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.

You are playing games with semantics.  If something is out of policy
then it is correct to say we may not do it, where "we" is the PPPC.
That is a statement about the here and now.  Whether "we" could do it
if the policy changed, or whether "we" left Apache and set up
elsewhere, are all interesting questions, but not really the here and

> Ross

View raw message