Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <5033E4B9.7020207@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:42:49 +0200
From: Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: What to say in AOO 3.4.1 release announcement about the ports?
 (BSD, Solaris, OS/2)?
References: 
 <CAP-ksoiLjUfioHfQ4JuVeKneWdrkJdESWAD9RLYVYiZ_PrAFoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAP-ksoh+EA7_9ZVxVfpQNtd7Z0vgqDiQX30+Kdd3EwUq5m=W=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <501AF438.70707@wtnet.de> <k0n67o$sue$1@ger.gmane.org>
 <502F45FD.5060007@wtnet.de>
 <CAP-ksoiAokei-1rphRZBzz6Xb1xdO=D92_T3u-rOcsN7Wacieg@mail.gmail.com>
 <502FA122.3070004@wtnet.de>
 <CAP-ksoi9mDCzcOggRTTbSkAA7EoZLir928XYbEZ=UASNDq-2rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <502FA8DE.5010300@wtnet.de> <502FC42D.7000101@wtnet.de>
 <502FC874.5030908@wtnet.de> <1345311017.5334.2.camel@sybil-gnome>
 <50302211.9050006@wtnet.de> <1345337148.2331.16.camel@sybil-gnome>
 <5030BDD9.6000202@wtnet.de>
 <CAP-ksohXPdWLXAYnX1CW84mqi+qjVdkcDtb6z1rfe+cfDRMbHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGj3214g7RbjkDqKzU=C5Vj0-1vwWfnxP0FWfxX2vH+j_6vWpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5032180A.3090108@apache.org> <5032637C.2090905@gmail.com>
 <5032988E.8070701@wtnet.de> <5032ADD7.6000209@gmail.com>
 <5032C721.2070906@apache.org>
 <CAP-ksojvNXH43ebCF8ZfaFV8+x0JPwvB+aJUJo7KpJ6_SKR+pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5033B931.2040601@gma
 il.com>
In-Reply-To: <5033B931.2040601@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kay Schenk wrote:
> We can leave the porting page "as is" with winPenPack on it, and just
> see what happens. But I guarantee that based on comments on
> comments/questions we've already had over the past year, we will
> basically be obliged to list every other distributor that also feels
> they have legitimate distribution.
> And, listing winPenPack contradicts what we have on the "distribution"
> page:  http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/

No, there's a major difference between a "distribution" (a terminology 
existing at Apache but not in the previous OpenOffice.org project) and a 
"distributor" (which is terminology used in the old OpenOffice.org 
project and is what http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ refers to, 
or used to refer to).

A "distribution" is a piece a software derived from OpenOffice. The 
winPenPack team (and PortableApps too, if/when they decide to provide 
it) takes the original binaries as downloaded from the OpenOffice 
website, performs a "fake installation", changes a few configuration 
settings and makes the result available on SourceForge as a 
"portable/live" variant of OpenOffice. Others might start from source, 
add extensions and templates (and even functionality) and obtain 
something called "Xyz, based on OpenOffice.org".

A "distributor", for the old project, was someone delivering unmodified 
copies of the OpenOffice.org source and binaries on CD-ROM (and/or 
selling download links, and this was considered borderline behavior). A 
portable version would have never been included in 
http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ since that page/project was only 
related to different ways (rather than downloading from the official 
site) to obtain the unmodified OpenOffice.org.

Regards,
   Andrea.