On 31/07/2011 21:59, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > On ooo-dev, we continue to ponder how we can support the existing > OpenOffice.org web site and the subdomains thereof with minimal friction and > maximum preservation of the accumulated material. Here is a thumbnail of > what the objectives are: > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Transition+Planning> > (with the understanding that development-focused aspects would move, at least > in part, to Apache locations from the OpenOffice.org location). > > Assuming > > 1. That the OpenOffice.org domain lease is transferred to the Apache > Software Foundation > 2. That sufficient volunteers come forward to support whatever the > infrastructure support requirements are, and > 3. There are no legal@ objections, > > Question > > 4. Is it technically feasible and acceptable to have, operating on Apache > infrastructure, the OpenOffice.org web site and subdomains as open public > sites operating with software that would otherwise not be very tasty on > Apache (PHPBB which is GPLd and may have some customizations, for example)?
Why would GPL be an issue? Last time I checked large parts of Linux were GPL and we happily run that. We prefer to eat our own dogfood but will happily run most things if it is the right tool for the task at hand. If you look at what infra runs today, there is a wide range of proprietary and open source software with a very wide range of licences. > I know that is very hypothetical in this form, but it is not worth navigating > (1-3) unless 4 would work at the end of the day. I would imagine that these services would be hosted on project managed virtual machines of some form and whoever manages them now would continue to manage them. The central infra team may end up managing some aspects such as DNS. The detail can be worked on as part of the incubation process. The much more important question is who will support it. There have been far too many examples of projects requesting a service, promising to help support it and then never being heard from again when it needs maintenance. If the current maintenance is performed by Oracle rather than the community there will be concerns about the viability of that model. On a related note, infrastructure will not tolerate project managed systems that are insecure. We will shut them down first and ask questions later. Projects are expected to keep on top of security for the services that they manage. We do arrange things so projects can only shoot themselves in the foot but will still expect security to be maintained. Mark
