On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 12:39 AM, 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. > i think most of this is already available. We need to extend the code to handle multiple repositories in the extension manager as known from for example NetBeans. You can of course already define your own update URL for your own extension and everything works out of the box to get the update information via this URL. The current repository provides automatically an update URL for extensions hosted in the repo. The whole mechanism is already very flexible. To add my personal opinion, i would still prefer a repo for all kind of extensions. What we need is a working eco system around the office suite and i think commercial extensions can be an important part of such an eco system. Specialized extensions for only a subset of (business) users for example. It would allow ISV's to build their own business around the office suite ... Juergen > I think this is complementary to TDF's interest in hosting open source > extensions. > > > S. >
