Interested in retrieving more information about the Extension debacle

I subscribed to the mailing list but got bounced several times.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Alexandro Colorado
Date: Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:50 AM
Subject: Interested in retrieving more information about the Extension debacle
To: openoffice-extensions-discuss@gnu.org

A few minutes I came across a tweet saying about the extension
repository status. I also read the information provided in LWN.net
about the initial FSF request. It wasn’t clear (from both sides) what
was the real issue.

The extension repo is pretty dumb and is just a website, so no
integration with OOo. When I read about

“Therefore, the FSF has launched an effort to assemble a replacement
extension library, which will list only the extensions that are free.
Any OpenOffice.org user will be able to use the new library instead of
the usual one just by making a simple configuration change. It will
not require any change in the code of OpenOffice.org itself.”

I am unsure what it means by “library” is it a programing library, a
listing on the web? or what exactly is what FSF means as library. From
what I know the extension repo is just a drupal site and has has no
conectivity to OOo product directly directly, so how can users make a
“simple configuration” to change the library?

This is not like a linux/unix repo where there is a client on the
system that retrieves collections from the net.

On the other side, I support the idea of classifying the free and non
free options under different categories in Drupal, just like it’s done
with Dictionaries, by operating systems and more popular. An option
listing Free-only and non-free could generate this listing dinamically
on the site.

I am also confused with the FSF recomendation of providing an
“alternative listing” which will be done by having a free-only
category, the user will be able to see a free-only listing of the
extensions.

This from my understanding is what CC also was open to by their response:

“Extensions Repository

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has notified the CC that the OOo
Extensions Repository does not conform to FSF principles, as it hosts
‘non-free’ software. As a result, any software distributions wishing
to conform to FSF standards should not make use of the OOo Repository.
The CC agreed that licence information could be improved on the
Repository, as this is an important factor people should consider when
choosing extensions. The FSF would be welcomed to help in providing
this sorting / filtering mechanism. However, the CC would not support
a forking or partitioning of the Repository to exclude ‘non-free’
extensions. OOo respects the right of its users to make their own
informed choice of software, and believes this is best achieved by a
single Repository offering a full selection of extensions. ”

key in here…

The CC agreed that licence information could be improved on the
Repository, as this is an important factor people should consider when
choosing extensions. The FSF would be welcomed to help in providing
this sorting / filtering mechanism.

So I want to understand what does the peittion is really rallying to?
To avoid proprietary software from the drupal site completely?
Or to have a separate drupal site (or other) under a different domain
having just the free extension?
Or just to have a different listing the way I explained before?

Advertisements