On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote: > Am 13.07.11 01:47, schrieb Jomar Silva: >> >> On 2011/6/12 19:38 Pedro Giffuni<giffu...@tutopia.com> wrote: >> >>> While this is understandable, it is not good enough. We will have to >>> find an >>> alternative repository and link to it from Apache's website. This is >>> something >>> that can wait though. >> Can you please explain the 'not good enough' and also propose an alternative >> solution ? > You removed the answare. The fact that only Open Source extension are alowed > is not ideal. Everyone at OOo knows the storry about this topic. The wish to > have only Open Source extensions come from the FSF. This wish was refused by > the CC of OpenOffice.org with good reasons. I don't think, this reasons go > away only because we move to the ASF. > > A Extension Repository with only Open Source Extension makes maybe the FSF > happy, but do not cover our need. So this is one more time more a ideological > question.
+1 - We should attempt to have the most complete and agnostic registry of all extensions and the most open collection of templates possible. I've asked the contact that I made last night at OSUOSL for two things. (1) Some statistics about the server. (2) Contacts at Sun/Oracle who were working on the performance issues - which involve scale. With data we have a better idea of what infrastructure is required. I think we need to find out from Legal if the ASF actually has an issue with hosting differently licensed software on a machine that is not on the internet at *.apache.org, but on *.openoffice.org. Regards, Dave
