incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:17:23 GMT

On Jan 6, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> On 6 January 2012 16:31, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Ross Gardler
>>> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:49, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler
>>>>> <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:03, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> 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.
>> 
>> No, I'm saying that as a mentor of the AOO podling, as a long standing Member of
The Apache Software Foundation and as a current VP of the foundation I believe that I have
a pretty good feel for why things are the way they are. This allows me to, with reasonable
confidence, guess at what would be allowed and what would not.
>> 
> 
> As always, thanks Ross for your mentor's wise words of advise.  But I
> personally am having difficulties determining sometimes whether you
> are merely giving mentorly advice versus actively advocating, like a
> PMC member, for one particular outcome over another.   If your intent
> really is to argue against the SF proposal (which is how it looks to
> me) then maybe we can just get a clean, unadorned argument for that
> position, one with fewer hats.  So far I've seen no one else but you
> argue that position, so it would be good for the overall discussion to
> hear it, from you personally.  I think that would be allowed,  right?

I'm reading this thread. The message is that ASF policy is flexible to a certain extent. It
is not like a corporation's policy which is likely to be bureaucratically inflexible. Rob,
would you please try to get used to that ;-)

The proposal is now somewhat buried in this long thread.

There are issues to decide.

(1) What is the AOO vision of extensions, templates in the longer term (or even AOO 3.4)?

(2) How do we get Extensions and Templates stable?

(3) How do we disconnect E and T from using Oracle infrastructure for userids and passwords?


> 
>> At the very least, I know the boundaries of my knowledge and I know who to ask once
I know what to ask. Hence this thread.

Thank you!

Regards,
Dave



>> 
>> Ross


Mime
View raw message