On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Another option that comes to mind: > >>>> > >>>> 3) Have OOo extensions hosted by a 3rd party website and we link to > >>>> that site. It is done that way essentially now with OSL. But I think > >>>> we'll want to be more explicit about such links to 3rd party sites > >>>> going forward, stating that this is not Apache code, etc. > >>>> > >>>> Also, if most of the extensions are applicable to LibreOffice and > >>>> other derived products, as well as OpenOffice, then this might be an > >>>> opportunity for collaboration with The Document Foundation on a common > >>>> extension repository. > >>>> > >>> > >>> As it happens I'd already started exploring this one with the Document > >>> Foundation Steering Committee, and Jomar Silva raised it on the > >> TDF-Discuss > >>> list. TDF are just about to launch a full version of their extensions & > >>> templates system and they would be perfectly happy for AOOo to redirect > >> the > >>> URL that OpenOffice.org is using to access the repository so that it > uses > >>> the system TDF are hosting for LibreOffice. > >> > >> Is the intent to host all of the extensions currently at the OOo site? > >> Or a subset? Or a different set? > >> > > > > They host only extensions that have open source licenses, so the ones at > the > > OOo site that have proprietary licenses are not hosted. > > I'd like to have a central catalog of all extensions, commercial as > well as open source. Not necessarily hosting them, but having the > basic metadata with links to whatever site hosts them. If we have > something like this then we can escape the need for having a singe > host site that gates user visibility of extensions based on eclectic > things like license considerations. You could even have multiple > such catalogs. Maybe some which curate only GPL extensions for > example. > > To do something like the above would require agreeing on a metadata > description file for extension authors. > Sounds like a job for the ODF Plugfest (or at least a subset of its attendees). Meanwhile, the offer stands as a practical and pragmatic solution to keep end users running during the transition. S.
