On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > 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
A slight correction. We collaborated with SourceForge on two projects: hosting the extensions and templates websites as well as mirror the distributions. The records show that Sam OK'ed handing over the templates and extensions to SourceForge [1], but for the mirroring this go-head we received was from Joe. [1] http://markmail.org/message/oveyethdmsxnykfj [2] http://markmail.org/message/ioxowodlwsqoba5i > 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
