On 25 Oct 2011, at 02:55, Dave Fisher wrote: > I tried to be ambiguous with fork/"downstream". There is a relationship, and > whether it originates as a fork, upstream, downstream, or upside-down > relationship the relationship *IS* a *PEER* relationship. (auf Deutsch, ist > klar?)
:-) I just want to make clear that, listening to both sides of this issue, it is very easy (on both sides) for people to use language that is unintentionally inflammatory and then treat the other party as at fault when they react to it... > So, this could be a true point of co-operation, there was a thread about this > and it did have some good ideas. > > Extensions and especially templates are likely to compatible. This isn't a given. By the time AOOo makes an end-user release, there are likely to be substantial differences and a shared add-ons repo would probably need to distinguish strongly between the two projects. Still worth considering though, I agree. > Given the licensing issues with Apache hosting it does make more sense for > the TDF to host these. TDF won't host closed extensions though, so the combined (TDF + Apache) repo would still hold less than the current repo. > No technical reasons why the openoffice.org DNS for these couldn't point to > servers hosted by the TDF. Maybe this is a compromise solution for the security list too? make it [email protected] and point the MX at a TDF server? S.
