openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Anything we can do about premature redistribution?
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:09:14 GMT
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.mail@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 04/02/2014 09:22 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>
>> 2014-04-02 21:15 GMT+02:00 Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>:
>>
>>> Am 04/02/2014 06:20 PM, schrieb Roberto Galoppini:
>>>
>>>   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.orgor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   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:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>   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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that these kind of downloaders do not care about
>>> disclaimers - less then ever when located somewhere else. ;-)
>>>
>>> So, either we disable the entire download for the specific timeframe or
>>> at
>>> least a text as substitute (like "This release is not yet public. Please
>>> stay tuned and come back when it is announced."). But this text has then
>>> to
>>> be on Sourceforge in the same location.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's doable in the way Kay described. And yes, we would add the
>> text
>> and disable downloads.
>
>
> Just to be sure, is this limited to a special subdir like
> ".../files/milestones/"? Or also, additionally for ".../files/"?
>
>
>>> I'm wondering if the "staging" bit can help as best solution. I would
>>> expect that the new location is not public *and* not known *and* not
>>> useable/functional for the normal non-admin user *until* we remove the
>>> bit.
>>> Am I right?
>>
>>
>>
>> In past we extended the 'staging' period of time for weeks, this could be
>> done again if necessary and it's definitely a more effective way to share
>
>
> Good to know. I thought you had extended the timeframe permanentelly. ;-)
>
>
>> files only with a selected audience (admins). Would that work, or you want
>> to be able to share those files with a larger audience?
>
>
> I don't think it's relevant to a wider audience.
>
> We still speak about the timeframe between starting uploading to Sourceforge
> and the official announcement. Within this timeframe it should be possible
> for admins to test the download webpage with scripting - to see if it will
> work - but there must not be no way to download the builds from the public.
>
> So, I would prefer to go with the "staging"-bit as:
> - it is already available
> - there is no confusion for the public
> - it's easy to delete the bit to make the release public
> - and (please don't get me wrong ;-) ) we can do it alone without the help
> of you or someone else of Sourceforge.
>
> What do others think about this?
>

My original recommendation was to put a more prominent warning in the
[VOTE] emails.  The problem is this:  if we are to have a public vote
then the files we're voting on must also be public.  Whether this is
on SourceForge or people.apache.org, it is publicly known that this is
the 4.1 RC and some websites will download and copy onto their
websites.   I don't think there is any technological means to prevent
this.  We only have our ability to educate about the risks.

-Rob


>
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org


Mime
View raw message