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 15:49:18 GMT
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.
>> 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
>> now.
> This is really not helpful. The ASF is not a place where things are
> written in stone. On multiple occasions I and others, have said the
> policy might be changeable here.
> What we are discussing are the options for the *future*. I am not
> playing with semantics I am stating a simple fact - if the policy as
> it is today is restricting the AOO podling the ASF will consider
> changing that policy.
> At best arguing against this fact is a waste of time, at worst
> claiming this fact is not relevant is preventing us from considering
> other potential solutions.
> 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.

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.

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.

I apologize for suggesting that any of these might not be allowed at
Apache.  Let's keep an open mind and let Ross inquire whether policy
might be changed to allow these three things.  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.  But in parallel with that
discussion let's establish the policy change possibilities, so we're
not arguing on top of mush.

> Ross

View raw message