I agree that anyone that does major overhaul to build a branded distribution of their own will certainly do that. I am absolutely not concerned about that. Those are forks and they are just fine.
For binaries built and distributed by the Corinthia project, whatever the quantities and mix are, I am concerned about two cases: (1) assuring the authenticity and integrity of the ones built by the project and (2) discouraging knock-off any Corinthia-originated executables and "apps" that pass for someone else's but end up appearing to be ones built and as distributed by the project. The white-label situation is mainly about (2) if and when that ever arises. It is good to know the policy about that, so we don't fall into the problem that AOO faces (and this has nothing to do with an AOO-Corinthia connection, just that they now face a problem over knock-offs). (1) also helps in conjunction with (2) but (1) includes knowing they have artifacts that were produced by the project and that the project stands behind. There are a number of positive benefits, including other folks doing forensic work that leads them to look into the libraries someone is using. It is valuable for there to be a clear-cut method for determining it was produced by the Corinthia Project or not. This is also relevant if we ever need to identify library distributions that may be impacted by a vulnerability or exploit and it is important that folks can determine what has dependencies on that particular library. -- replying just to this one -- From: Peter Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 18:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] White-Box Releases Only > On 22 Dec 2014, at 9:39 am, Peter Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: [ ... ] > I think a precursor to this is us determining what exactly Corinthia *is*. My > view (and I realise others may differ) is that it is first and foremost a > collection of libraries from which one can build end-user applications (be > they commercial or open source), rather than an application in and of itself > (which is a key difference from OpenOffice). While application develop has > been discussed as part of the effort - and I agree is within the scope of > what we are doing - I think we risk confusion if we try and use the Corinthia > name to refer to a particular application. [ ... ] I also foresee there being several major applications that come out of our efforts. One could be a desktop office suite. Another could be a web-based office suite. A third may be an iOS/Android office suite. A fourth may be a dedicated writing tool, or a dedicated spreadsheet (that is, focusing on one particular aspect). A fifth could be a content management system/e-publishing workflow which utilises the editor and file format support. So I think that targeting a specific application that an end-user can download & use is at this stage premature, and risks constraining the scope of what the project is about. As I mentioned above, I see our efforts as primarily directed towards “building blocks” used for building *many* different end-user apps, with likely multiple end-user apps in addition to that - but each of those apps would be a distinct brand/distribution from the perspective of an end user. [ ... ]
