+1.
----- Original Message ----- > From: Ross Gardler <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 9:39 AM > Subject: Re: Extensions hosting > > On 6 January 2012 13:53, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Ross Gardler > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 6 January 2012 09:32, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> > wrote: >>>> On 04/01/2012 Roberto Galoppini wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2012/1/4 Jürgen Schmidt: >>> >>> ... >>> >>>> Sounds good. The stabilization phase can be done anywhere, but as > Rob wrote >>>> if we cannot keep the current repository as part of the project > anyway, it >>>> makes sense to do it as part of a larger effort. >>> >>> Can we please put a stop to this meme. Nobody has said that it > *can't* >>> be kept as part of the project. I have no idea why this keeps getting >>> repeated. There are issues to be addressed, but nobody has said we >>> can't address them. That's what this thread is about, creating > a >>> proposal for the board to consider and give us an indication as to >>> whether it would be acceptable or not. >>> >> >> If by "repository" you mean merely the software that hosts the >> repository, then you are correct. If by "repository" you mean > also >> all of the extensions and templates that are hosted in the repository, >> including GPL, trialware, demoware and other commercial, non OSS >> extensions, then I think Juergen is correct. > > I mean distributing the extensions from ASF hardware, including the > licence incompatible ones. > > To my knowledge nobody has said that this cannot be done at the ASF in > the long term. What has been said is that current policy does not > allow for it. Permission is granted to serve them here during > incubation and the resolution of the policy issue has been delegated > to the IPMC. > > Nobody has said what the conclusion of the IPMC will be longer term > and, to my knowledge, nobody has asked either. > >> In fact we've been told >> that this would be an issue for graduation. > > One of us is mistaken. Please point me to a mail that says anything > other than the *policy* issues need to be resolved. > > I'm not saying you *will* be allowed to host them, I'm saying you > *may* be allowed to. Similarly, I'm asking you, and others, to stop > saying you *won't* be able to host them. > > Ross >
