incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Need to Revisit RAT Excludes and Wildcards
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:31:44 GMT
Hi Dave;


----- Original Message -----
 ...
>> 
>>  The particular concern of how the "official" packages are 
>> generated and distributed  is also interesting. At this time
>> I would say the FreeBSD port is as legitimate and
>>  worthy of being tagged "Apache OpenOffice" as the Windows 
>> packages in  sourceforge.
> 
> I have been thinking the same.
> 
> I think that we need to carefully define what is an official Apache Release - 
> SOURCE - and what is a project "sanctioned" binary artifact that can 
> be called Apache OpenOffice in a way that Users will be able to trust what they 
> receive.
> 
> The build options and source code changes for each "sanctioned" binary 
> artifact will need to be disclosed. At what point does a build of Apache 
> OpenOffice require the name Foo Bar powered by Apache OpenOffice?
>


The concept of no binary release gives strength to the notion I have sustained
that a release is "what is tagged in SVN", and anything that comes out from it,
including LibreOffice, is an ApacheOO derivative.

Concerning binary branding:

If we compare the code generated by gcc42 or gcc46 or clang we will
find accidental differences that I don't think are worthy of forcing a branding
change. I would think that changes to the build system that don't affect the
source code are perfectly acceptable from a branding point of view.

If we take apart, for a moment, the compilation options and the specific compiler
used, we could say there is a one to one relationship between the source code
and the executable for a given platform and I would think it can be called
Apache OpenOffice. 

What would define the need, or not, of the "powered by" prefix would be added
value: extra icons, more filters, etc. Of course other projects may choose not to
use the Apache name at all, and so far there have been no requests to use
Apache branding on such releases. For the time being I think we can leave
for later the definition of those hypothetical branding schemes.

  
>>> 
>>>  PS. Sure glad that we did as suggested by Pedro ;-)
>>> 
>> 
>>  Yes, thanks for mentioning! I took a lot of heat for it at the time but 
> finally it should
>>  be clear it had to be done :).
> 
> I was with you at the time. It can be easy to forget that some of the initial 
> compromises are interim solutions that are contingent on further action. There 
> is an important reason for the DISCLAIMER, and this is one.
>

Yes, Ross and you and some few others with more insight into the ASF
processes have been immensely helpful

Thanks!

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message