On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 20, 2012 8:33 PM, "Rob Weir" <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>... >> > I would also state that continuing to argue is symptomatic of a >> > failure to understand and integrate with the Foundation's thoughts on >> > the matter. Or to at least politely discuss the situation on >> > legal-discuss. >> >> I would say the lack of understanding could be in both directions, and >> some greater tolerance would be mutually beneficial. > > I *am* being tolerant (you should see my intolerant emails). And what makes > you believe that I don't understand? I get to offer my thoughts, and you do > not get to say that I have a "lack of understanding" simply because you > disagree. > >> Remember, OpenOffice is unlike anything else previously at Apache. > > Duh. Don't be so patronizing. >
Greg, I am certain that you are well-informed of the details about OpenOffice and its history. But for the benefit of IPMC members and observers who may have followed this less closely I thought that a brief summary would be welcome. I apologize if you thought it was unnecessary. > Again: I suggest the discussion about making authorized/authenticated > binaries be moved to legal-discuss. Not here. Infrastructure may need to > provide some input, too. > Do you have a specific question we should be asking legal affairs and/or infrastructure? We have already had extensive discussions on legal-discuss, including discussions about specific dependencies that are only included in binary form in our binary artifacts, per ASF policy. These discussions were in the context of releases that included source and binaries. I don't recall hearing any concerns raised in principle about releasing binaries along with source. The guidance from Legal Affairs was focused more on the permissible dependencies and required form for LICENSE and NOTICE and copyright statement in the binaries. But if you have a specific license-related question we should resolve with them, please let me know what it is. I'd be more than happy to check with them. As for Infrastructure, we've also had extensive discussions with them on the specific topic of distributing the binaries. There was an initial sizing, a poll of the mirror operators and a determination that the storage and bandwidth would be too great for many of the mirror operators. So a separate list of mirror operators was created who could handle our dist, and this subset rsync's with the OpenOffice dist. Also, SourceForge volunteered to provide us access to their distribution network. This was approved by VP, Infrastructure. As of our AOO 3.4.0 release the majority of the downloads for the binaries does not involve Apache Infra at all, but goes through SourceForge. But the source downloads, as well as the downloads of the hashes and detached signatures does go through the normal ASF mirror network. Again, I'm not aware of an open question we have for Infra related to the proposed AOO 3.4.1 podling release. If they had an issue I know they would not be shy about raising it with us. But if you have something specific that you think we should ask them, please let me know. I would be delighted to check with them. > I might also point you to Sam's recommendation to avoid over-posting to a > thread as a way to dominate / get your way. How many emails are you up to > so far? I'm trying to determine what your substantive issues are and to resolve them to your satisfaction. If you want to hear less of me, then please get to the point and say what your concerns are and what exactly would resolve it. Regards, -Rob > > -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
