openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberto Galoppini <roberto.galopp...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:20:08 GMT
2014-04-01 21:30 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>:

> Am 03/31/2014 11:56 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>
>  On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>>
>>  On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 03/29/2014 09:36 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>>>
>>>>  2014-03-28 21:24 GMT+01:00 Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Am 03/13/2014 10:01 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Am 03/09/2014 06:08 PM, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Am 03/08/2014 12:09 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  http://linux.softpedia.com/get/Office/Office-Suites/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apache-OpenOffice-253.shtml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    Or maybe a disclaimer in the voting
thread email?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew's comments show clearly that these editors do
not care to be
>>>>>>>>> careful or factual, or even read those disclaimers, unfortunately.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can be successful only if we manage to block their
downloads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They
>>>
>>>> link to our binaries hosted on SourceForge (which is fine). Just
>>>>>>>>> thinking loud, but if it was possible (on the Sourceforge
side) to
>>>>>>>>> deny
>>>>>>>>> all download requests that do not come from the openoffice.org
or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the
>>>
>>>> sourceforge.net domains, then the project would effectively be in
>>>>>>>>> control. The embargo could be lifted just after the release.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me this sounds like a great idea.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe we should start with denying all download requests
that some
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from
>>>
>>>> these bad websites.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @Roberto:
>>>>>>>> Can you tell us if this possible? If yes, is it much effort
for you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you see a chance to get this implemented? I think it could
help to
>>>>>>> stop some bad websites to do bad things with our software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> @Roberto:
>>>>>> Maybe you haven't seen this up to now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for heads up Marcus, sorry for not having noticed this thread
>>>>> before.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be great if you can tell us if it's possible to exclude
some
>>>>>> domains / IP addresses from downloading our software?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I need the domain list and I'll check out with our SiteOps if that's
>>>>> doable. Feel free to send me a list with a direct message.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - chip.de
>>>> - computerbase.de
>>>> - softpedia.com
>>>>
>>>> This would be the domains from this thread that could be blocked from
>>>> downloading from Sourceforge. Obviously needs to be extended in the
>>>>
>>> future.
>>>
>>>> Remember, the next will happen with the AOO 4.1.0 RC. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> *Of course*, this is just for the time frame as long as the new version
>>>>
>>> is
>>>
>>>> not officially announced. As soon as the release is public, the block
>>>>
>>> will
>>>
>>>> be removed.
>>>>
>>>> @all:
>>>> I think this could help to limit the downloadability like we want to see
>>>> until the official release. What you think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't know.  Won't this just cause confusion?  They point to the
>>> files, go to test them, see the links don't work, and then get weird
>>> errors and spend an hour trying to debug it.  We don't want to
>>> needlessly annoy them, since their only fault is enthusiasm.   Is
>>> there a way we can give a useful error message in this case like,
>>> "This version of Apache OpenOffice has not yet been officially
>>> released.  Links to these files are disallowed until the release is
>>> officially approved"  or something like that?
>>>
>>
> To be honest, I don't care about a few days were a special set of domains
> were not able to access for a few days. For me they are a bit too
> enthusiastic. And as you said in a previous post it's to protect us as best
> as possible.
>
>
>  +1 This seems sufficient to me.
>>
>
> @Roberto:
> Do you see a technical way to return a predefined error message when the
> release builds are already on Sourceforge but not yet officially released
> and published?
>

Our SiteOps team looked into this, here our findings:

One provider (chip.de) serves via Akamai CDN, one provider (computerbase.de)
serves via their own FTP server, and softpedia.com lists SourceForge as an
external mirror and passes traffic through our download redirector flow
(not direct to a mirror).

The first two cases are things we can't control.

In the third case, we can indeed redirect this traffic by referrer to a
different landing page if one is provided. Maybe we want to have a
openoffice.org page explaining that's a release-candidate and it's served
only for testing purposes and its use on a daily basis it is not
recommended.

How does that sound?

Roberto


>
> Thanks
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>  Then we can exclude requester that we don't want (e.g., malware
>>>>>> "distributors").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also in time frames with Beta or RC releases it can help us to steer
>>>>>>
>>>>> who
>>>
>>>> is able and when it is possible to download OpenOffice like we want to
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> until the real release date is reached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sure, sites could still copy all binaries being voted upon and
>>>>>> offer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> them locally, but this would require a more significant
effort. on
>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>> side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And more HDD space and more own bandwith - which is also
not what
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they
>>>
>>>> want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Marcus
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message