On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 12:35 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:15 PM, drew <d...@baseanswers.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 17:11 +0200, Eike Rathke wrote: > >> Hi Rob, > >> > >> On Sunday, 2011-08-14 10:17:28 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: > >> > >> > IIRC, these extensions are 3rd party, under a variety of licenses, > >> > including some that are not open source. Is that correct? > >> > >> Yes. > > > > I for one agree with this expansive policy,
<snip> > >> > > >> > What do you think of a distributed approach like this? > > > > I have two quantitative questions which I would strongly wish to have > > answered, if possible, before offering my opinion on long(ish) hosting > > options. > > > > 1 - The percentage of inbound visitors coming from the application vs > > from search engines. > > > > 2 - The percentage of artifacts that are stored directly on the OSUOSL > > server vs a link to a remote site. I am working on the assumption that > > this is a very high ratio, where a goodly number of these local files > > are _likely_ stored only on this server. (not sure there would be anyway > > to actually answer the last part of that sentence for sure..) > > > > > >> > >> Fine. Isn't much different from the current situation. Best if technical > >> details could be worked out such that no code apart from the actual > >> repository/directory URL needed to be changed. > > <snip> > > > > If there are "standard extensions", where we store the source in SVN, > treat it as part of the project and release via the normal procedures, > then I can certainly see hosting the extension on Apache servers. But > I don't see that happening for 3rd party extensions. > > I don't think the basic situation changes based on domain names > openoffice.org versus openoffice.apache.org. Yes - Nóirín's comments make that clear also, should of stayed with my first choice. > If it is on Apache > servers, controlled by the Apache project, using the Apache > trademarks, then it is hard to say that code distribution can be done > without following Apache rules for releases and licensing. > > Aside from the licensing concern, I'd also be concerned with the > impact of hosting commercial (non-open source) extensions on our > status as a non-profit. > > I think we have a two workable solutions: > > 1) Host all of the extensions externally. This could include > Apache-extra.org. We could link to such an external repository from > our website, with a suitable disclaimer stating that this is a > non-Apache site. > > 2) Host only the description and metadata, essentially a catalog or > directory, and require that all non-Apache owned (not in our SVN) > extensions be hosted externally. This could include external hosting > at Apache-extras,org, SourceForge, Google, or whatever else the author > prefers. > > > Either option would obviously require some coordination and > communications with the extension authors. I prefer option #2. [from out of left field] Would members consider transferring ownership of the current repository hosted on the OSUOSL server to a third party, perhaps created specifically to take this over, and then working with them to create the indirect reference site under the AOO project, filtering out un-acceptably licensed items as a way to achieving option #2. This would move the entire repository without needing to locate individual authors. > > Another thing to consider is this: If there is some load related > issues here, then we should consider taking a close look at the top 5 > or so extensions and see if we can get them, or equivalent features > into the core AOOo release. So better than dealing with load, we can > prevent the requests altogether by giving users what they want in the > core release. It's something to think on, again it depends a lot of that usage information, IMO. //drew
