Hi all,
If both parties (ASF, TDF) agree, I could imagine that team openoffice
is willing to provide funds for an independent location, but at the same
time I'm wondering whether such neutral zone is wanted and makes sense ?
What I really don't like to see is a third location for OpenOffice.org
gets established, that would not be the right sign,
Martin
Am 25.10.2011 13:03, schrieb Simon Phipps:
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
coordinat...@security.openoffice.org and point the MX at a TDF server?
S.
