On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Jan 6, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ross Gardler >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 6 January 2012 16:31, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Ross Gardler >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:49, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:03, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not saying you *will* be allowed to host them, I'm saying you >>>>>>>>> *may* be allowed to. Similarly, I'm asking you, and others, to stop >>>>>>>>> saying you *won't* be able to host them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Lets continue to focus on what the AOO *wants* not what some of us >>>>>>> perceive is *allowed*. Once we know what is wanted we can explore what >>>>>>> is possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK. So if we want to host the extensions site, as is, and have it >>>>>> conform to some revised ASF policy, then we would need to be able to >>>>>> do things like: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Host GPL extensions on Apache servers, using websites associated >>>>>> with Apache products, using Apache trademarks. In other words, >>>>>> without the distance the Board has encouraged the use of Apache-Extras >>>>>> for in the past. >>>>> >>>>> That is not a correct summary of the ASFs position. We do not >>>>> *develop* software that is under any licence other than ALv2 (go to >>>>> apache-extras). As far as I understand it the extensions site does not >>>>> provide development support. >>>>> >>>>> We do not distribute incompatibly licensed code that might restrict >>>>> the rights of our downstream users to *modify* the source of our >>>>> projects. Since none of the extensions will be bundled with AOO >>>>> releases this is not relevant. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You seem to be saying that anything not forbidden may be allowed. >>> >>> No, I'm saying that as a mentor of the AOO podling, as a long standing >>> Member of The Apache Software Foundation and as a current VP of the >>> foundation I believe that I have a pretty good feel for why things are the >>> way they are. This allows me to, with reasonable confidence, guess at what >>> would be allowed and what would not. >>> >> >> As always, thanks Ross for your mentor's wise words of advise. But I >> personally am having difficulties determining sometimes whether you >> are merely giving mentorly advice versus actively advocating, like a >> PMC member, for one particular outcome over another. If your intent >> really is to argue against the SF proposal (which is how it looks to >> me) then maybe we can just get a clean, unadorned argument for that >> position, one with fewer hats. So far I've seen no one else but you >> argue that position, so it would be good for the overall discussion to >> hear it, from you personally. I think that would be allowed, right? > > I'm reading this thread. The message is that ASF policy is flexible to a > certain extent. It is not like a corporation's policy which is likely to be > bureaucratically inflexible. Rob, would you please try to get used to that ;-) > > The proposal is now somewhat buried in this long thread. > > There are issues to decide. > > (1) What is the AOO vision of extensions, templates in the longer term (or > even AOO 3.4)? > > (2) How do we get Extensions and Templates stable? > > (3) How do we disconnect E and T from using Oracle infrastructure for userids > and passwords?
One more point - extensions are critical for Native Language support and some language packs are only available with an incompatible license. > > >> >>> At the very least, I know the boundaries of my knowledge and I know who to >>> ask once I know what to ask. Hence this thread. > > Thank you! > > Regards, > Dave > > > >>> >>> Ross >
