I think there were objections to that as well. Also note that the current state of http://royale.codeoscopic.com may need some other adjustments to be approved by Apache's VP Branding as a valid home page for an Apache project. This page [1] mentions a "Donate" button and some other things.
Carlos has done a great job and spent plenty of his precious time on this already, but the choice of commercial themes is turning out to be a problem. One option I think we have is to see what changes Carlos would have to make to his site for it to be ruled as a "fan site" and build a simpler and conforming site on royale.a.o with CSS that "looks similar" but with conforming content. My 2 cents, -Alex [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs On 10/29/17, 10:51 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >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. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.code >>oscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C76c801888c3d4049ca8c08d51ef5b4c5%7Cfa7b1b5a >>7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636448963003434412&sdata=9LfHDTE%2BCri >>6177x5CCX1J0QTkIry1aQDsYS%2FBxHNz4%3D&reserved=0> >> >> Carlos Rovira >> >> Director General >> >> M: +34 607 22 60 05 >> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo >>scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C76c801888c3d4049ca8c08d51ef5b4c5%7Cfa7b1b5a7 >>b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636448963003434412&sdata=9LfHDTE%2BCri6 >>177x5CCX1J0QTkIry1aQDsYS%2FBxHNz4%3D&reserved=0 >> >> >> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Favant2. >>es%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C76c801888c3d4049ca8c08d51ef5b4c5%7Cfa7b1b >>5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636448963003434412&sdata=AHQo5j38pqI >>0UEabS7J1AW0jQEwOvWcvqFsVdpKTakM%3D&reserved=0> >> >> >> 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. >>
