On 11/21/12 11:31 PM, Robert Barbey wrote: > Rob, > > thanks for the quick answer. Unfortunately, I wasn't talking about the Writer > extension but about the Maven plug-in. It hasn't been decided yet whether the > extension will be publicly available. >
no problem, more important is that the extension works smoothly and integrate well in the office. As you mentioned it is a very specialized extension and a server backend is necessary to run it. From this perspective it makes probably more sense to publish it via the extension repository. Regarding the package name, this is a very interesting question that we should clarify in general. Historical we had chosen "com.sun.star..." for the Java UNO core API's as well as the IDL type definitions that goes 1:1 in a package or namespace structure. We can't simply change the existing packages/namespaces because it's simply a lot of work and it is probably also a good idea to add new IDL types in the existing modules to avoid confusion. But we can think about completely new things and here two options come into my mind org.openoffice.... org.apache.openoffice I would prefer the first and shorter one. Any opinions? Juergen > Sorry for the confusion! > > Robert > > > On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Robert Barbey >> <robert.bar...@acrolinx.com> wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> as I mentioned earlier on this list, I'm working on a Writer extension in >>> Java. We're using Maven as a build tool and I wanted to let Maven generate >>> description.xml and update.xml files based on the information in the POM. >>> That's why I started writing a Maven plug-in that can do that. >>> >>> I convinced my CTO that it would be a good idea to donate this plug-in's >>> sources once it's completed. I'd like to know what's necessary in terms of >>> licensing. Is it sufficient to prepend a licensing statement to each source >>> file or is more involved? Are they any formatting conventions I should know >>> about? And what about package names? >>> >> >> So two options: >> >> 1) Make your extension be open source at Apache, for distribution >> within an OpenOffice release >> >> 2) Make it open source elsewhere, like on SourceForge, and distribute >> it on our extensions website: http://extensions.openoffice.org/ >> >> Key insight is that for #2 you can have any license you want. Of >> course, we think the Apache License is a fine license. >> >> For #1 we'd want to first have a discussion on the list on what your >> extension does and whether it makes sense to be part of the project. >> >> Regards >> >> -Rob >> >> >> >>> Thanks for your help! >>> >>> Best, >>> Robert >>> >
