I agree. We might want to avoid that. Looks like the option of pointing to a wp.com site has been done already.
Can we push for this? Thanks, Om On Oct 29, 2017 10:37 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Om, > > I think that's the better option, but my question is how to do this. > > How we can put the static generated site live under royale.apache.org > without having that code on some repo? (the latest is very important) > can we do this? do you know how to do it? > > note: remember that we don't want to upload the actual website code to some > public repo due to commercial code licenses (movedo theme license) > > Thanks > > Carlos > > > > 2017-10-29 2:10 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]>: > > > I suggest we just release what Carlos as a static website for now. > > As time goes by, volunteers can build up a separate website using just > > Royale. At some point we can simply swap out the wp.com site with the > new > > Royale based website. > > > > There is absolutely no requirement that the new site has to look like the > > wp.com. So, worrying about legal implications of maintaining the same > > look > > and feel is premature. > > > > Let's not make perfect the enemy of the good. > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Thanks Yishay for your words > > > > > > 2017-10-28 19:09 GMT+02:00 Yishay Weiss <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > Carlos, I agree that our resources are limited and this this might > not > > be > > > > the best way to spend them at this point. However, there are some > > points > > > > that have not been mentioned in this discussion that make me think we > > > > should try to move our site to Royale. > > > > > > > > One is that we claim to be different to other frameworks in that > > overhead > > > > can be much smaller. A site that performs at the level of a classic > > > static > > > > site would be a significant proof of concept. If it doesn’t perform > > well > > > > enough we’ll have some information on where we can improve in that > > > regard. > > > > > > > > Related, we need to finally start eating our dog food. The more > visible > > > > our dog food, the more feedback we’ll get. > > > > > > > > Also, if new people really want to contribute to out site, I’d much > > > rather > > > > have them learn Royale than WP. > > > > > > > > > > That's ok. I only said that we are run out of resources and I don't > see > > > many people available to make this effort. > > > In my case, my plan was to focus on design to bring something good to > > > production, but didn't expect such problems with something we should > put > > > online, complete with real content and focus on other things. > > > In my case, I would prefer to donate my tiny time in other things more > > > needed. In concrete I prefer to donate in "theme" feature, styling > > express, > > > and so on... > > > But if someone wants to work on replicate the site with Royale our > other > > > html plain code, that's right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, whether or not Royale ends up being a good tool for > > > > classic web sites I see some reasons to try and achieve that for our > > own > > > > site. > > > > > > > > Finally, suppose I wanted to replicate your site in Royale just for > the > > > > heck of it. Would that be ok from a legal stand-point? I couldn’t > > > > understand that from the thread so far. > > > > > > > > > > If we recreate the site with our own set of CSS, JS, that's right. > Nobody > > > could say us nothing since no commercial code is involved there. > > > As well, If we put the actual static generated site online, without > > having > > > to upload the code to any repo, that's alright as well, since is the > > normal > > > use, and the rest of people using that theme is doing the same. > > > > > > Thanks for your considerations. > > > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, and great work so far. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > <http://www.codeoscopic.com> > > Carlos Rovira > > Director General > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video> > > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede contener > información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje por > error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma vía y > proceda a su destrucción. > > De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le comunicamos > que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es CODEOSCOPIC > S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del > servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso, > rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a nuestras > oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la documentación > necesaria. >
