incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: non-ASF distribution...Re: CD-ROMs for consumers
Date Tue, 15 May 2012 18:37:29 GMT
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > OK, I changed the subject on this since I think what we need to
> discuss
> >> > applies to more than just CD-ROMs...I hope  that's OK, see my reply
> >> below...
> >> >
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> So the current state of affairs is:
> >>
> >> 1) Anyone is free to distribute OOo or AOO on CD, on their website, on
> >> USB keys, etc.  We're open source, and the license fully permits this.
> >>
> >> 2) Although use of the ASF-owned trademarks is restricted, any one is
> >> free to send an email to the project and request the use of the logos
> >> for use on their CD distribution.  We have received and approved
> >> requests like this in the past.  For example, CD's for distribution at
> >> conferences.
> >>
> >> If we want we can just continue with those two principles and do
> >> nothing more.   But IMHO there are some subset of redistribution of
> >> AOO that we might permit the use of the logo without any explicit
> >> permission.  If we decide to do this, we could specify the conditions
> >> under which such redistribution might take place.  Note that this is
> >> not a restriction on what distributors may do.  They always have the
> >> options given per #1 and #2 above.  The point is merely to provide a
> >> lighter weight process for doing #2, in a subset of cases that we
> >> believe are for the public good.
> >>
> >> It is an additional question whether we want to maintain a registry or
> >> directory of such distributors.
> >>
> >> I'd be especially interested in what users think of this.  What would
> >> be their expectations if we maintained such a list?
> >>
> >
> > I can't answer this one and I appreciate your perspective #1.
> >
> > The immediate thing(s) I'm concerned about is packages that we have
> > highlighted on the website -- all the "porting" section
> >
> >  http://www.openoffice.org/porting/
> >
> > Should this continue. There is no disclaimer here.
> >
> > Additionally, since we have no link to this from the main download page,
> > how do folks even find out about it.
> >
> > Advice needed.
> >
>
> I think we need to make it clear what the 'porting project" is, if we
> keep that name.
>
> A) A way to enable 3rd parties to create ports and distribute them on
> their own
>
> or
>
> B) A way to enable new project volunteers to create and release new
> platform support within the project
>
> There is some overlap here, since someone who does A) will likely be
> contributing patches as well.
>
> This is parallel to enhancements of AOO as well, whether we speak of
> enhancement translations, extensions, features, etc.
>
> A) Doing the work in our SVN and releasing as part of an official release
>
> B) Doing the work externally, and releasing externally.
>
> I think both are fine, and we should help and encourage both, as part
> of the broader ecosystem.  But we'll want to distinguish, in branding,
> and in how we link to these products, what is really an official
> release of the project and what is a 3rd party derivation.
>
> So I think the concept is broader than just "ports".  One idea is to
> create a new page and link to it from
> http://www.openoffice.org/download/, as a new "block" on that page.
>

Well I think it would be a great idea to link the "ports" to the download
page.

For now, I'll post a separate thread to find out more. I don't know
anything about the "porting" project.


> It could be called "3rd party Ports, Enhancements and Extensions".
> And on that page we could put the disclaimer and then link to other
> products that are based upon AOO.   And maybe from the OOo 3.3.0
> download page we could link to the legacy ports page?
>
> -Rob
>
> > (I will pull the UpUbuntu link from the install instructions later
> > today...should I add it to "porting"?).
> >
> >
> >> Alternatively, we could rely on distributors to advertise themselves.
> >> A search engine query, for example, for "OpenOffice CD Schweitz"
> >> should match a customer with a vendor, if such a vendor in Switzerland
> >> exists.  The customer would still need to establish trust, risk their
> >> payment and the vendor would similarly need to watch out for their
> >> reputation.  And the vendor would have motivation to keep his listings
> >> current.  None of this would involve Apache.
> >>
> >> This is the way consumers match themselves up with goods everywhere
> >> else.  We seem to get every other variety of CD in the world without
> >> involving Apache.  Why should this be different?
> >>
> >> In other words, isn't this a problem that solves itself?  We give
> >> permission to use a special logo on CD's that follow our rules.  We
> >> then educate users to look for that special logo.  We then leave it to
> >> the distributors to advertise themselves.
> >>
> >> Note:  I'm not opposed to maintaining a registry at Apache  I just
> >> think that we have little motivation to keep it up to date, and so it
> >> will not be maintained.
> >>
> >> > == non-formal distributions ==
> >> > Right now, as we've discovered, there are already folks distributing
> 3.4
> >> > that we don't know anything about. We don't know who they are, we
> don't
> >> even
> >> > know WHAT they've got in their distributions. They haven't asked for
> >> > permission from us, we don't even know where they're obtaining what
> >> they've
> >> > got.
> >>
> >> This is permitted by the license.  AOO can be redistributed and
> >> modified and the modifications can be redistributed.  Even if the
> >> modifications suck, there is nothing we can do.
> >>
> >> Trademark is another issue.  The right to redistribute does not
> >> include permission to use the logo in promoted the modified version.
> >>
> >> Malware is another issue.  Users might have local options, depending
> >> on local laws.  For example California has an anti-spyware law.  But
> >> that is something that a user would need to pursue, not Apache,
> >>
> >> > We should, by some means, address this immediately in some way --
> >> message on
> >> > the home page etc. We don't know who they are, we don't even know WHAT
> >> > they've got in their distributions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> User education is also part of the solution, I think.
> >>
> >> > This doesn't require any process by us.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > == partners, more formal requests ==
> >> > I would put the former CD-ROM folks in this category. We provided a
> list
> >> for
> >> > our customers to obtain OOo in this way.
> >> >
> >> > Your ideas about obtaining software from one of the mirrors is good
> here.
> >> >
> >> > Rob's replacement page for distribution talks about our establishing a
> >> > process--
> >> >
> >> > http://ooo-site.staging.apache.org/distribution/index.html
> >> >
> >> > so let's talk about that. What should this process be? What are we
> >> requiring
> >> > from them. What information do we need from third party folks, like
> >> CD-ROM
> >> > providers or other builds/methods of distribution, that come to us?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > == and finally, helping ourselves ==
> >> >
> >> > Do we know of any sites with AOO 3.4 that we want to include for users
> >> with
> >> > potentially helpful distributions? This is  a case where no one has
> >> > contacted us but we found something that might be useful, and tested
> it
> >> out
> >> > to our satisfaction.
> >> >
> >> > A case in point would be (me) putting that UpUbuntu link in the
> install
> >> > guide.  These folks didn't even come to us, and there have been
> concerns
> >> by
> >> > other ooo-dev folks about it. At the time, many were excited about it,
> >> but,
> >> > well...maybe not so fast... Does adding something like this to a page
> on
> >> our
> >> > site somehow make us responsible for it?
> >> >
> >> > Further thoughts?
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > "Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
> >  And life has a funny way of helping you out
> >  Helping you out."
> >                            -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Well, life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
 And life has a funny way of helping you out
 Helping you out."
                            -- "Ironic", Alanis Morissette

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message