On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Dr. Michael Stehmann <anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote: > Am 21.06.2013 17:06, schrieb Rob Weir: >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:56 AM, RA Stehmann >> <anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote: >>> Hi Rob, >>> >>> I can understand your concerns, but they aren't drasticly. >>> >>> I'm with you, that we have to make clear, the Box isn't a product of the >>> ASF but distributed by the "Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V..". >>> >>> But on the other hand the "Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V.." isn't >>> any old third party. >>> >> >> We need to be fair. Treating one 3rd party special is not fair. > > Treating equal things unequal isn't fair, but it's also unfair treating > unequal things equal. You have to make the decision, what's equal and > whd what's unequa and in what aspect. That's the sense of "suum cuique > tribuere".
This is a clever argument but is not relevant to this topic. There are multiple definitions of fairness, but the one we need to follow is based on US tax law related to the ASF's status as a non-profit corporation, as well as related Apache policy and practice in this area. We should not be giving exclusive benefits to one 3rd party over another based on old friendships, etc. This may be different for German foundations. Even in the US there are different forms of organizations (fraternal clubs, etc.) that have different rules. For purposes of 3rd part distributions, fairness means we define rules for listing 3rd party distributions that work to benefit the public and then apply those rules impartially. But we need to avoid preferential treatment based purely on personal relations or status in the community. You can see examples of this in how we list consultants: http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html Anyone who applied and met the basic requirements was listed. We did not give special placement to those who were in the community longer, etc. We're doing something similar for CD distributors. Again, it will be done fairly, giving all qualified 3rd parties equal access. So when you hear the word "fairness" in this context, that is generally what is meant. Regards, -Rob >> >>> It's a charitable german entity supporting Free office software. It's >>> still supporting Apache OpenOffice. The computer an the monitor at our >>> Fosdem stand were provided by "Verein Freies Office Deutschland e.V..". >>> >>> Disclaimer: I'm no member of that club, but know persons who are. >>> >>> So IMO it's ok to put that news in the news line of the homepage, making >>> clear, who's the distributor of that product. >>> >> >> I'd be much happier if the German community listened to what I am >> saying and took steps to address the full issue. IMHO you need to add >> a page that gives equal access to all 3rd party ports and >> distributions, and not just favor a single one with a news >> announcement. > > see above. > > IMO you like to treat uneqal things equal. > > Making a page presenting third party products makes sense. > > But it don't makes sense, presenting all third party products in the > news. And it makes IMO sense presenting the box there. > >> >> If you then give announcements of updates to these distributions, >> whenever they occur, and do such announcements fairly, not for just a >> single 3rd party, then this might be OK. So if you really want to >> move this forward I'd highly recommend creating and maintaining a >> German version of the porting page: >> http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ >> > > Doing one thing doesn't mean to drop another. > > Regards > Michael > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
