You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/08 06:51:45 UTC
Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
[...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
de-facto 'upstream'.
Let assume that in a parallel universe you happened to put your and on
a full Linux snapshot relicensed under ALv2.
Do you really think that you can then proclaim yourself 'upstream' of
Linux and start telling Linus, Greg, Alan and other: hey guys... since
we don't want to^H^H^Hcan't take you patches, from now on _we_ get to
run the show... but don't worry, you can still translate
/Documentation and write user-space code... or you can come work for
me, under _my_ terms... your 'choice'.
And of course make that bold statement even before you read the code,
figure out how to build it or even figure out what you want to try to
do with it and how....
How do you think that would fly ?
let me push that a bit further, to illustrate how ludicrous and
fallacious that license argument for upstream is. Let's say I have few
millions to spare and I outbid IBM to buy OOo from Oracle... then I
license the whole thing under a 'you can do what ever-you-want license
without attribution', but I demand that to accept any code back, you
have to assign copyright to me and renounce any right on the code you
contribute, including any 'attribution'... in these conditions the
code could flow from me to Apache, but not the other way around. Does
that make me 'upstream' ?
Furthermore, you got to choose: either you make car-part of you make a
car... but you can't do both and expect other cars to be built upon
your parts... unless you presume that every other car manufacturer
should happily and gratefully turn into a neighborhood custom-shop.
not to mention that is is much harder to stay objective with the
design decisions of parts - to make them generally useful - when you
have a specific car in mind... and that doesn't even require malice or
ill-intent.. it is a normal drift... If you build speedometer with the
US market in mind, because that is where the car you're making is
going to be sold, you may have the tendency to optimize things for
mph... and not even consider kph...
In short, sure the license is a problem for me, but if Apache provide
good parts, I'll have no qualm using them, and if I do and if I can
be useful, I'd probably also set my licensing view aside punctually
for pragmatical reason and send patches on the other side of the
fence..
But right now the main turn-off is the arrogance of all these would-be
'upstreamers', based on no other basis or 'merit' than the fact that
IBM chose them to dump 8+ millions line of C++ (and 2000+ makefile
that need OOo-customized GPLed-program to build... but that's another
story).
In these circumstance, I'm moving to Missouri (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri#State_nickname )
Norbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Jun 7, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
> done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
>
> Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
> de-facto 'upstream'.
Water flows downstream because gravity "pulls" things down and
so water takes the path of least resistance in that direction.
The path of least resistance in code in from an AL-type license
to a GPL-type one... the reverse is not. If your upstream
is AL, your feeds can be AL, LGPL, GPL, etc... If your
upstream is GPL, your downstream can only be GPL (you have
access to much fewer feeds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Ian Lynch wrote:
> It's no good saying "if this or if that" because we are
> where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-).
Exactly.
> This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise
the
> development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two
> separate developments that end up incompatible with one another as far as
> code sharing is concerned?
> So in the end it is really quite a simple choice, cooperation or
separation.
> If it is cooperation and the licenses stay the same then to maximise
> resources, Noel's position is logical if not easy emotionally or
> philosophically for some.
Not mine. Perhaps stated more clearly and plainly, but others said the same
before me.
The issue is that there are players, IBM not being the only one, who require
a permissive license. TDF's licensing does not satisfy that requirement.
TDF could change, but I haven't seen any positive indication that it would.
So we are where we are:
- There is a codebase under a permissive license.
- There are players -- large and small -- who want/need to work on it.
- There is a large community actively engaged in working on the code
under a non-permissive license.
- Code can only flow from permissive to non-permissive.
Alternative suggestions as to HOW to collaborate are welcomed.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 8 June 2011 08:43, Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> > under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
> > done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
> >
> > Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
> > de-facto 'upstream'.
>
> Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
> "upstream", it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.
>
> What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
> are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
> acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total split
> between LO and OO. Your reaction only goes to show that this
> sensibility is required: Such a split would be the worst thing to
> happen and it is something where LO would loose nothing (compared to
> the time before the proposal) but would have missed a chance to win.
>
This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise the
development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two
separate developments that end up incompatible with one another as far as
code sharing is concerned? It's no good saying "if this or if that" because
we are where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-). So in the
end it is really quite a simple choice, cooperation or separation. If it is
cooperation and the licenses stay the same then to maximise resources,
Noel's position is logical if not easy emotionally or philosophically for
some.
>
> Jochen
>
> --
> Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
> will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
> everyone.
>
> John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:17 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo&
>>> LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
>>> 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).
>>>
>>> I hope we can move forward on this.
>>
>> If we are to call the vote on Friday as currently seems to be the target (which is in no
>> way fixed) I wonder if the ASF representatives who engaged with the TDF lists can provide
>> a little feedback. Specifically I'm interested to know if there was any discussion along
>> the above lines.
>
> I'm hoping 'they' don't. E.g. that the "ASF representatives" who engage
> the TDF community are the Podling PMC members, old hats and newcomers alike,
> and that this communication and community bridge-building is delegated to
> that podling itself.
+1
> But if there are new concerns raised at TDF that must be addressed before
> an acceptance vote, I hope any of the signed up committers already feel free
> to bring those concerns to this list.
+1
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/8/2011 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
>>
>> 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo&
>> LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
>> 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).
>>
>> I hope we can move forward on this.
>
> If we are to call the vote on Friday as currently seems to be the target (which is in no
> way fixed) I wonder if the ASF representatives who engaged with the TDF lists can provide
> a little feedback. Specifically I'm interested to know if there was any discussion along
> the above lines.
I'm hoping 'they' don't. E.g. that the "ASF representatives" who engage
the TDF community are the Podling PMC members, old hats and newcomers alike,
and that this communication and community bridge-building is delegated to
that podling itself.
But if there are new concerns raised at TDF that must be addressed before
an acceptance vote, I hope any of the signed up committers already feel free
to bring those concerns to this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org>.
On 08/06/2011 16:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> My understanding is that the Apache OpenOffice codebase matters to IBM
> and anyone who would want to use the specificities of the Apache
> licensing, and I understand this as being a reality we can all agree
> on. Instead of spending hours and keystrokes pondering on the ability
> of the Apache OpenOffice project to execute or to become LibreOffice's
> upstream, I would like to rephrase or reframe Simon's proposal, esp.
> its points 2 and 3 (2: rename the project to Apache ODF suite 3. make
> this project not the office suite that competes with LibreOffice but
> make it the meeting point of development efforts for specific purposes
> and ODF). Basically this amounts to think about the current proposal
> based on two factors:
>
> 1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo&
> LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
> 2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).
>
> I hope we can move forward on this.
If we are to call the vote on Friday as currently seems to be the target
(which is in no way fixed) I wonder if the ASF representatives who
engaged with the TDF lists can provide a little feedback. Specifically
I'm interested to know if there was any discussion along the above lines.
Of course, I will also be trying to find the time to read the relevant
articles. To speed some of us along would it be possible for someone to
post links to those archives here.
Thank you.
Ross
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by "Charles-H. Schulz" <ch...@documentfoundation.org>.
Hello Marvin,
Le Wed, 8 Jun 2011 06:04:42 -0700,
Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> a écrit :
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud
> > <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman
> > > <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best
> > > outcome under the current licensing regime is for all core
> > > development to be done here, and for TDF to be a downstream
> > > consumer.
> > >
> > > Just because you choose a particular license that does not make
> > > you de-facto 'upstream'.
> >
> > Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
> > "upstream", it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.
> > What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
> > are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
> > acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total
> > split between LO and OO.
>
> +1
>
> The split between LO and OOo is reality.
>
> The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
> reconcile them. To make Apache OOo "upstream" from LO would mean one
> of two things:
>
> 1. The LO people throw out everything they've done and start over
> from scratch.
> 2. The LO people organize a large collective software grant to
> Apache for their work. Since there are a lot of people involved,
> this would be a daunting task even if it wasn't politically toxic.
>
> In both scenarios, TDF, after all they've gone through, after all the
> work they've done, takes on a reduced role: to use Norbert's analogy,
> they go from being the auto factory to being a custom shop.
>
> We're coming off like some know-it-all newbie manager waltzing in
> after a hostile takeover and imperiously informing the people closest
> to the project that they are being demoted and they should be happy
> about it 'cause our organization is so freakin' awesome.
>
> What we ought to be doing instead, if we really want to form good
> relationships with the LO community, is not continually repeating
> abrasive "facts" about licensing, but showing a modicum of *humility*.
>
> The reason I praised Sam is that he is clearly sensitive to all
> this. He has been an exemplary ambassador, and my hat is off to
> him. It is worth repeating his recommendations in their entirety:
>
> That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.
>
> At the present time, there are people who would rather not
> participate in such an arrangement. They have something that works
> just fine for them. Many are skeptical that we can deliver. The
> most that we can do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b)
> execute. If we do both well, we will achieve much more than we could
> by prior agreement.
>
> I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't
> yet have a track record or anything new to offer. And that in such a
> context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim
> that we are the core or even are relevant.
>
> I think that passage represents the best of Apache's inclusive
> traditions, and I hope we can live up to it -- both the sake of the
> project and for our own sake as human beings.
Well spoken; although I believe that humility has to be equally shared
among every stakeholder :-)
I think you have perfectly summarized the issue here, and I think it's
perhaps time to consider this issue to be clearly stated in this way
(at least the part related to TDF). Now if we could move forward I
think that what could make sense would be to define or clarify what
exact purpose would serve the OpenOffice code base at Apache and the
Apache Openoffice project. I know that no codebase ever had any intent
in itself and that people do whatever they want. That's true and by the
way that's why software patents are dangerous, (but that's another
discussion), but it does not preclude the project and its vision to be
articulated in a different way than a general purpose office suite
that's free, open source and uses ODF. In this case, LibreOffice fits
the bill, but so does KOffice/Calligra (btw, nice examples to draw
inspiration from), Abiword/Gnumeric, etc.
My understanding is that the Apache OpenOffice codebase matters to IBM
and anyone who would want to use the specificities of the Apache
licensing, and I understand this as being a reality we can all agree
on. Instead of spending hours and keystrokes pondering on the ability
of the Apache OpenOffice project to execute or to become LibreOffice's
upstream, I would like to rephrase or reframe Simon's proposal, esp.
its points 2 and 3 (2: rename the project to Apache ODF suite 3. make
this project not the office suite that competes with LibreOffice but
make it the meeting point of development efforts for specific purposes
and ODF). Basically this amounts to think about the current proposal
based on two factors:
1. find a proper coherence and relevance between Apache OOo &
LibreOffice on a technological level and on a distribution level
2. find a proper coherence with IBM's business requirements (Symphony).
I hope we can move forward on this.
Best,
--
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by André Schnabel <an...@gmx.net>.
Hi,
can we please just end this futile discussion?
I agree, that water flows one direction only. But there needs to be
water first to flow in any direction.
If there will be enough to establish a flow, can only be seen, once the
podling is in place. The risk estimation (will the podling run dry?) is
up to Apache.
regards,
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
> reconcile them. To make Apache OOo "upstream" from LO would mean one
> of two things
OK, let's clarify for sensibility: Apache would be upstream (licensing
acting as a diode), but not THE upstream.
As for how to do that, that's something that would have to be worked out
between the project and other stakeholders, e.g., TDF. The greater the
extent of the upstream work, the greater the code sharing.
Charles Schulz wrote:
> Instead of spending hours and keystrokes pondering on the ability
> of the Apache OpenOffice project to execute or to become LibreOffice's
> upstream
OK, can we put to rest the idea that code sharing only flows in one
direction due to the licensing, and that is the sole implication of the word
"upstream"? :-)
> I would like to rephrase or reframe Simon's proposal:
> - rename the project to Apache ODF suite
That's up to the project.
> - this project not the office suite that competes with LibreOffice but
> make it the meeting point of development efforts for specific purposes
> and ODF).
Again, this is up to the project and the needs of its participants. But you
appear to be ignoring the need for a permissively licensed product codebase
on behalf of some members of the proposed community.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:43:45AM +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> > under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
> > done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
> >
> > Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
> > de-facto 'upstream'.
>
> Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
> "upstream", it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO. What he
> misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you are reacting
> angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that acknowledges that this fact
> is just as likely to cause a total split between LO and OO.
+1
The split between LO and OOo is reality.
The code bases are already divergent and it would be very difficult to
reconcile them. To make Apache OOo "upstream" from LO would mean one of two
things:
1. The LO people throw out everything they've done and start over from
scratch.
2. The LO people organize a large collective software grant to Apache for
their work. Since there are a lot of people involved, this would be
a daunting task even if it wasn't politically toxic.
In both scenarios, TDF, after all they've gone through, after all the work
they've done, takes on a reduced role: to use Norbert's analogy, they go from
being the auto factory to being a custom shop.
We're coming off like some know-it-all newbie manager waltzing in after a
hostile takeover and imperiously informing the people closest to the project
that they are being demoted and they should be happy about it 'cause our
organization is so freakin' awesome.
What we ought to be doing instead, if we really want to form good relationships
with the LO community, is not continually repeating abrasive "facts" about
licensing, but showing a modicum of *humility*.
The reason I praised Sam is that he is clearly sensitive to all this. He has
been an exemplary ambassador, and my hat is off to him. It is worth repeating
his recommendations in their entirety:
That indeed would be a wonderful place to end up.
At the present time, there are people who would rather not participate
in such an arrangement. They have something that works just fine for
them. Many are skeptical that we can deliver. The most that we can
do is (a) enable such collaboration, and (b) execute. If we do both
well, we will achieve much more than we could by prior agreement.
I think it is in our best interests to acknowledge that we don't yet
have a track record or anything new to offer. And that in such a
context it is rather presumptuous at this point for us proclaim that
we are the core or even are relevant.
I think that passage represents the best of Apache's inclusive traditions, and
I hope we can live up to it -- both the sake of the project and for our own
sake as human beings.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
> > de-facto 'upstream'.
You may not like that a diode only allows current to flow one way, but that is its function.
The notion of upstream is simply a factual function that code can only flow in one direction due to the license. It doesn't cover the ratio or quality of work, just a statement of direction.
There is also the tacit belief that we'd all like to avoid a fork, and that is the way to avoid it, again, because code can only flow one way. I have seen no proposal from anyone that avoids a fork without having a permissively licensed upstream source or having TDF change to the necessary form of license.
> What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
> are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
> acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total split
> between LO and OO.
Actually, I recognize the issue.
> > Do you really think that you can then proclaim yourself 'upstream'
> > [and] and start telling [people] from now on _we_ get to run the
> > show...
Who is this "we" to whom you refer? It isn't the ASF. This is the formation of a new WE: an OpenOffice.org Community. It already exists in other forms and places, and all of those people are welcome to participate. All that the ASF provides is a license, support and infrastructure. The WE are YOU: IBM, TDF, anyone else who wants to work on the code.
I would suggest that the new WE should offer commit rights to people who have existing commit access to the code base at TDF.
> > And of course make that bold statement even before you read the code,
> > figure out how to build it or even figure out what you want to try to
> > do with it and how.
Again, the people coming here are the WE. Those who join the Community. And those WE have read the code, do builds, etc.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Upstream/Downstream (was OpenOffice & LibreOffice)
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> [...] their downstream code cannot be used. Hence, the best outcome
> under the current licensing regime is for all core development to be
> done here, and for TDF to be a downstream consumer.
>
> Just because you choose a particular license that does not make you
> de-facto 'upstream'.
Noel is describing a fact: It there is going to be something like
"upstream", it can only be an ASL licensed OO, not a LGPL'ed LO.
What he misses (as quite a few others do, which is possibly why you
are reacting angry) is a certain amount of sensibility that
acknowledges that this fact is just as likely to cause a total split
between LO and OO. Your reaction only goes to show that this
sensibility is required: Such a split would be the worst thing to
happen and it is something where LO would loose nothing (compared to
the time before the proposal) but would have missed a chance to win.
Jochen
--
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men
will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of
everyone.
John Maynard Keynes (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Keynes)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org