You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Götz Wohlberg <go...@googlemail.com> on 2012/01/04 01:22:13 UTC
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Hi Don,
Hope you had a relaxing xmas break!
Am 23.12.11 02:44, schrieb Donald Harbison:
> This seems like a much more constructive thread.
>
> FWIW, I know the guys at Team OO, well, at least since I first met them in
> 2005 at OpenOffice.org Conference in Koper, Slovenia. There is passion and
> continuity here that I think Pavel speaks very eloquently about. And it's
> worth respecting and supporting, in my view.
Thanks! I can only echo this.
> This is especially true, if
> they are sincere in stating they will move to exert their efforts as
> volunteers in the future of Apache OpenOffice, once they are finished with
> this maintenance release (3.3.1)...
We would love to start joining the work on future version but we need to
fix our other problem first, which is funding.
> Sure, there have been blunders, but we here in AOO have not been so great
> with clear communications, so let's face the future, so to speak, together.
>
> To that end, why not offer the TeamOO guys a share of the brand, something
> like 'White Label Office 3.3.1, Powered by OpenOffice.org, now at Apache
> Software Foundation'?
>
> Or, 'White Label Office 3.3.1, Powered by Apache OpenOffice, the new home
> of OpenOffice.org'
Great! That's certainly something we are interested in. I would like to
see some more details about such a "Powered by"-program.
> So long as their fund raising efforts cease to mis-lead consumers, stating
> clearly that OpenOffice.org is now under the stewardship of the ASF, we're
> good.
Looks like we need to clean-up our messaging even more. Hope you've seen
the flying box on our website with "Home of the Development Project".
The problem is to find the balance between a description of our former
and planned role and a confusing association to the project. One
example: If we state, we helped to invent OOo, this is an important
message to our potential customers about our expertise. At the same time
this message ignores the fact that other inventors are working for IBM,
Novell or RedHat now. My opinion? They have sponsors and can speak for
themselves.
Our goal is to convince OpenOffice.org users to upgrade to Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 and buy support from us. And we will not get paid to just
promote Apache. So let's sort out who needs to communicate what.
>
> Yes?
Yes!
Thanks,
Goetz
>
> Stefan, Martin and Goetz, please respond first. What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> /don harbison
>
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Donald Whytock<dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <de...@acm.org> wrote:
>>> 2. I then wondered if "white label" had some other, independent
>> significance. Indeed it does:<
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-label_product>. And here too:<
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white_label>. Oddly, the English phrase is
>> apparently used in German as well. I don't think the association with
>> bootleg music is intended though. I will have to install the
>> German-language version of the release just to see how the identifier is
>> used within the TOOo release.
>>
>> Actually, by that definition, everything under the ASF is "white
>> label", as it's explicitly legal to rebrand it. That makes "White
>> Label Office" genuinely ironic.
>>
>> Don
>>
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 4 January 2012 14:21, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 AM, eric b <er...@free.fr> wrote:
...
> Our power is our ability to control use of the brand. Preventing use
> is one form of control. But channeling use to beneficial patterns of
> use can be even more powerful.
I totally agree with this statement. In fact I would add:
"Enabling everyone to benefit equally from the value of our brand
helps build a healthy ecosystem within which collaboration can occur
whilst still enabling participants to define their own boundaries of
collaboration and thus enabling them to build competitive advantage in
the marketplace that exists outside of our community."
Ross
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mer 18/1/12, Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > Neither: it will be the FreeBSD Apache Openffice
> port,
> > not unlike the FreeBSD OpenOffice.org port:
> > http://www.freshports.org/editors/openoffice.org-3/
> >
> > or the FreeBSD Apache httpd port:
> > http://www.freshports.org/www/apache22/
> >
> > Our packaging system builds everything directly from
> > the sources and we don't really do enough changes to
> > justify rebranding.
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Pedro.
> >
>
> That makes sense, Pedro. The package names for
> Ubuntu-distributed packages
> often have Ubuntu versioning built into the package name,
> but the product
> when running doesn't mention Ubuntu, as the changes (if
> any) are minimal or
> internal to the install package itself. In cases like
> that, "Powered by.."
> doesn't make any sense.
> ASF has a pretty plain page about trademark use
> http://apache.org/foundation/marks/ which helped me
> understand what was
> going on when I was writing some pieces for training
> purposes.
>
FWIW, we were about to move the openoffice.org port
from it's current directory to apache-openoffice and
we got a request to keep the old name.
We will be making the migration rather easy with some
bsd-ports foo :).
Pedro.
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> --- Mer 4/1/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> ...
> >
> > It doesn't make sense to me that all of the above must use
> > a different name than "OpenOffice", since some of them are
> > exactly equal to OpenOffice, just changing by distribution
> > or packaging mechanism.
> >
> > For example, once Pedro has a BSD port working, and is
> > ready to distribute it, what would it be called? "BSD
> > Office"? Or could it be called "Apache OpenOffice, BSD
> > Edition" That is a good example of a port.
> >
>
> Neither: it will be the FreeBSD Apache Openffice port,
> not unlike the FreeBSD OpenOffice.org port:
> http://www.freshports.org/editors/openoffice.org-3/
>
> or the FreeBSD Apache httpd port:
> http://www.freshports.org/www/apache22/
>
> Our packaging system builds everything directly from
> the sources and we don't really do enough changes to
> justify rebranding.
>
> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
>
That makes sense, Pedro. The package names for Ubuntu-distributed packages
often have Ubuntu versioning built into the package name, but the product
when running doesn't mention Ubuntu, as the changes (if any) are minimal or
internal to the install package itself. In cases like that, "Powered by.."
doesn't make any sense.
ASF has a pretty plain page about trademark use
http://apache.org/foundation/marks/ which helped me understand what was
going on when I was writing some pieces for training purposes.
Wolf.
[erlang syntax shows up everywhere].
%% just geek humour
--
This Apt Has Super Cow Powers - http://sourcefreedom.com
Advancing Libraries Together - http://LYRASIS.org
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Mer 4/1/12, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> ha scritto:
...
>
> It doesn't make sense to me that all of the above must use
> a different name than "OpenOffice", since some of them are
> exactly equal to OpenOffice, just changing by distribution
> or packaging mechanism.
>
> For example, once Pedro has a BSD port working, and is
> ready to distribute it, what would it be called? "BSD
> Office"? Or could it be called "Apache OpenOffice, BSD
> Edition" That is a good example of a port.
>
Neither: it will be the FreeBSD Apache Openffice port,
not unlike the FreeBSD OpenOffice.org port:
http://www.freshports.org/editors/openoffice.org-3/
or the FreeBSD Apache httpd port:
http://www.freshports.org/www/apache22/
Our packaging system builds everything directly from
the sources and we don't really do enough changes to
justify rebranding.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-01-04 9:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 AM, eric b<er...@free.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>
>>>> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo, like
>>>>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or
>>>>> are
>>>>> based on an Apache product.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache OpenOffice.org
>>>> websites should use the logo.
>>>>
>>>> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
>>>> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But
>>>> not
>>>> the OpenOffice.org one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure we're authorized (as a project) to permit use of the
>>> Apache logo. I suspect not. But we are able to create a "powered by
>>> logo" that is distinct from the "product" logo, for 3rd party products
>>> to use. The idea is to avoid diluting the value of the core product
>>> logo, but still allow 3rd party apps to express their use of the code,
>>> and for them to help us raise awareness of the brand.
>>>
>>> Think of it this way: Did the "Intel Inside" program help or hurt
>>> Intel and the value of their brand? I don't think it hurt them.
>>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>> The whole point of "Powered By" is that we allow broad and simple useage
>> of a *related* logo to third parties under certain conditions, but we
>> reserve rights to the official primary project logo to ourselves.
>>
>> This ensures that when people see the official primary logo, they are
>> thinking of Apache OpenOffice provided by the ASF. And when they see the
>> "Powered By AOO" or similar logo, they'll think of Apache OpenOffice, and
>> know that it's a related product, but is not Apache OpenOffice (just based
>> on).
>>
>> Note that "Powered By" is only a suggested separator phrase, trademarks@is happy to review requests for other naming styles. "Based On", "Built
>> With", etc. might be potentially good alternatives.
>>
>> what about 'Apache OpenOffice the FooBar Edition' ? FooBar = 3rd party
> added stuff licensed other than AL2; e.g. GPL, commercially, whatever.
> Would encourage ecosystem growth while carrying the parent brand up front,
> instead of tucked in back with a 'powered by AOO logo'.
>
I think that is what the legacy product did for distros. So there was
"OpenOffice.org Novell Edition", which was distributed on SUSE. The
idea is it was actually OpenOffice.org, maybe with some security
patches, but not a different product.
So it is fuzzy to me.
On the one hand we have things that are definitely derivative products
in the sense that they transform our release into something else.
What we did in the past with Symphony is a example. RedOffice might
be another. It is a new product, based on OpenOffice.
And then there are the cases where someone merely repackages the code
to make it more conveniently available for users of a distro to
download.
And then there are things in the middle, where it is the core product,
unchanged, but aggregated with other stuff, like more templates, clip
art, extensions, etc. That is what StarOffice was, right?
It doesn't make sense to me that all of the above must use a different
name than "OpenOffice", since some of them are exactly equal to
OpenOffice, just changing by distribution or packaging mechanism.
For example, once Pedro has a BSD port working, and is ready to
distribute it, what would it be called? "BSD Office"? Or could it be
called "Apache OpenOffice, BSD Edition" That is a good example of a
port.
Then you have cases where the code is not even recompiled but it is
just repackaged for a different distro.
-Rob
>
>> - Shane
>>
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-01-04 9:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 AM, eric b<er...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rob,
>>>
>>> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo, like
>>>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or
>>>> are
>>>> based on an Apache product.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache OpenOffice.org
>>> websites should use the logo.
>>>
>>> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
>>> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But
>>> not
>>> the OpenOffice.org one.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm not sure we're authorized (as a project) to permit use of the
>> Apache logo. I suspect not. But we are able to create a "powered by
>> logo" that is distinct from the "product" logo, for 3rd party products
>> to use. The idea is to avoid diluting the value of the core product
>> logo, but still allow 3rd party apps to express their use of the code,
>> and for them to help us raise awareness of the brand.
>>
>> Think of it this way: Did the "Intel Inside" program help or hurt
>> Intel and the value of their brand? I don't think it hurt them.
>>
> ...snip...
>
> The whole point of "Powered By" is that we allow broad and simple useage
> of a *related* logo to third parties under certain conditions, but we
> reserve rights to the official primary project logo to ourselves.
>
> This ensures that when people see the official primary logo, they are
> thinking of Apache OpenOffice provided by the ASF. And when they see the
> "Powered By AOO" or similar logo, they'll think of Apache OpenOffice, and
> know that it's a related product, but is not Apache OpenOffice (just based
> on).
>
> Note that "Powered By" is only a suggested separator phrase, trademarks@is happy to review requests for other naming styles. "Based On", "Built
> With", etc. might be potentially good alternatives.
>
> what about 'Apache OpenOffice the FooBar Edition' ? FooBar = 3rd party
added stuff licensed other than AL2; e.g. GPL, commercially, whatever.
Would encourage ecosystem growth while carrying the parent brand up front,
instead of tucked in back with a 'powered by AOO logo'.
> - Shane
>
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2012-01-04 9:21 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 AM, eric b<er...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo, like
>>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or are
>>> based on an Apache product.
>>
>>
>>
>> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache OpenOffice.org
>> websites should use the logo.
>>
>> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
>> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But not
>> the OpenOffice.org one.
>>
>
> I'm not sure we're authorized (as a project) to permit use of the
> Apache logo. I suspect not. But we are able to create a "powered by
> logo" that is distinct from the "product" logo, for 3rd party products
> to use. The idea is to avoid diluting the value of the core product
> logo, but still allow 3rd party apps to express their use of the code,
> and for them to help us raise awareness of the brand.
>
> Think of it this way: Did the "Intel Inside" program help or hurt
> Intel and the value of their brand? I don't think it hurt them.
...snip...
The whole point of "Powered By" is that we allow broad and simple useage
of a *related* logo to third parties under certain conditions, but we
reserve rights to the official primary project logo to ourselves.
This ensures that when people see the official primary logo, they are
thinking of Apache OpenOffice provided by the ASF. And when they see
the "Powered By AOO" or similar logo, they'll think of Apache
OpenOffice, and know that it's a related product, but is not Apache
OpenOffice (just based on).
Note that "Powered By" is only a suggested separator phrase, trademarks@
is happy to review requests for other naming styles. "Based On", "Built
With", etc. might be potentially good alternatives.
- Shane
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:03 AM, eric b <er...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>
>>
>> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo, like
>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or are
>> based on an Apache product.
>
>
>
> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache OpenOffice.org
> websites should use the logo.
>
> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But not
> the OpenOffice.org one.
>
I'm not sure we're authorized (as a project) to permit use of the
Apache logo. I suspect not. But we are able to create a "powered by
logo" that is distinct from the "product" logo, for 3rd party products
to use. The idea is to avoid diluting the value of the core product
logo, but still allow 3rd party apps to express their use of the code,
and for them to help us raise awareness of the brand.
Think of it this way: Did the "Intel Inside" program help or hurt
Intel and the value of their brand? I don't think it hurt them.
>
>
>
>> So it allows you to grow your own brand while accurately expressing your
>> use of the Apache code. We'd need to think how this could work with products
>> based on legacy OOo releases, pre Apache.
>
>
> This is a bad track. Indeed, people are already completly confused.
>
We should certainly try to avoid confusion.
> At one recent event, I discussed with some around 20 average french people
> (randomly, average users, not following OpenOffice.org story), and the
> result is :
>
> - Oracle is the current OpenOffice.org owner
> - OpenOffice.org is no longer free and Oracle killed it
>
> - LibreOffie is the new name of OpenOffice.org
> - Apache OpenOffice is yet another fork, nobody knows and nobody cares.
>
> It took me a long time to explain them what happened in meantime.
>
>
> I invite everybody to repeat the test, and share what they obtain.
>
The above may be true. But I don't think it is caused by logo confusion.
And think of it this way. What helps the brand more:
A) White Label Office making no mention of OpenOffice
or
B) White Label Office having a "Powered by OpenOffice.org" logo?
>
>
>> But I think something similar could be discussed.
>>
>
>> If we wanted, we could also include a link on the main download page,
>> pointing too White Label Office, but we'd need to be fair and offer the same
>> kind of link to anyone else who was based on OOo, and who was respecting the
>> trademarks, e.g., LibreOffice, Symphony, etc.
>
>
>
> IMHO, the right decision is to NOT add external links at all : easy to
> manage, and always fair for all.
>
> To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one
> NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the main
> OpenOffice.org porting project web page. It was a disaster for
> OpenOffice.org because people were confused, and thought NeoOffice was the
> "official" Mac OS X port. This way, NeoOffice derivated a long time the
> porting project forces, including donations who were derivated too.
>
> The case is exactly the same with LibreOffice today, and I strongly suggest
> to retain the lesson of the past, and to not redo the same mistake.
>
Avoiding past mistakes is important. But is there something that
could be done that promotes the larger ecosystem as well as avoids
confusion with users?
For example, look at the Apache Subversion download site:
http://subversion.apache.org/packages.html
It has links to many 3rd party derivatives of the Apache product. But
I think they help avoid confusion by having a prominent disclaimer on
the webpage:
"The Apache Subversion project does not officially endorse or maintain
any binary packages of the Subversion software. However, volunteers
have created binary packages for different distributions and
platforms, and as a convenience, we maintain a list of links to them
here."
> Defend the name, and control the logo usage, is ESSENTIAL. Just wondering
> how long it will take to the Apache people, to understand that it was the
> worse decision ever to rename** OpenOffice.org into Apache OpenOffice
> (instead of Apache OpenOffice.org, far better).
>
I agree that we need to protect and control the brand. But part of
that control can be promoting specific logos for specific purposes, in
ways that support the overall brand.
1) A logo that is only used on the website and in official Apache releases
2) A related, but distinct "powered by" or similar logo, that denotes
a product that is based on AOO
3) A related, but distinct "get AOO" or similar logo, that a supporter
can put on their website or blog to link to our download site
Our power is our ability to control use of the brand. Preventing use
is one form of control. But channeling use to beneficial patterns of
use can be even more powerful.
-Rob
>
> Regards,
> Eric Bachard
>
>
>
> **I bet there are a lot of LibreOffice / TDF supporters in the list of the
> people who voted for the change.
>
> --
> qɔᴉɹə
> Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
> L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
> Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 1/4/12 9:03 AM, eric b wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>>
>> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo, like
>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or
>> are based on an Apache product.
>
>
> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache OpenOffice.org
> websites should use the logo.
>
> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But
> not the OpenOffice.org one.
>
>
>
>> So it allows you to grow your own brand while accurately expressing
>> your use of the Apache code. We'd need to think how this could work
>> with products based on legacy OOo releases, pre Apache.
>
> This is a bad track. Indeed, people are already completly confused.
>
> At one recent event, I discussed with some around 20 average french
> people (randomly, average users, not following OpenOffice.org story),
> and the result is :
>
> - Oracle is the current OpenOffice.org owner
> - OpenOffice.org is no longer free and Oracle killed it
>
> - LibreOffie is the new name of OpenOffice.org
> - Apache OpenOffice is yet another fork, nobody knows and nobody cares.
>
> It took me a long time to explain them what happened in meantime.
i made similar experience but not exactly the same.
- many people thought OpenOffice.org was killed by Oracle
- many see LibreOffice as fork but the one that currently is alive and
that does strong promotion and is well established as default on the
Linux distros (where it is simply the replacement of a former fork)
- Apache OpenOffice is not well known and many people don't know the
relation between OpenOffice.org and Apache. -> it's our job to change
this ;-)
>
>
> I invite everybody to repeat the test, and share what they obtain.
>
>
>> But I think something similar could be discussed.
>>
>
>> If we wanted, we could also include a link on the main download page,
>> pointing too White Label Office, but we'd need to be fair and offer
>> the same kind of link to anyone else who was based on OOo, and who was
>> respecting the trademarks, e.g., LibreOffice, Symphony, etc.
>
>
> IMHO, the right decision is to NOT add external links at all : easy to
> manage, and always fair for all.
>
> To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one
> NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the main
> OpenOffice.org porting project web page. It was a disaster for
> OpenOffice.org because people were confused, and thought NeoOffice was
> the "official" Mac OS X port. This way, NeoOffice derivated a long time
> the porting project forces, including donations who were derivated too.
>
> The case is exactly the same with LibreOffice today, and I strongly
> suggest to retain the lesson of the past, and to not redo the same mistake.
>
> Defend the name, and control the logo usage, is ESSENTIAL. Just
> wondering how long it will take to the Apache people, to understand that
> it was the worse decision ever to rename** OpenOffice.org into Apache
> OpenOffice (instead of Apache OpenOffice.org, far better).
i am not sure and I hope we can transport the message of the new name.
When i voted for the change i thought I would have voted for the change
of the project name only (my mistake) and not the product name. We will
see, a good promotion and communication work in the public is necessary
here...
But we will keep www.openoffice.org as the main entry portal page to our
project.
We still have to answer many questions related the change of the product
name
- name of the installation directory and user directory
- name of the tooltip (e.g. mouse over the icon in the dock on a MacOS
system)
- menu entries or application name in the different systems
- registry entries on a windows system
- ...
For most of these question i would recommend to keep OpenOffice.org at
least for AOO 3.4.
Juergen
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 4 Jan 2012, at 08:03, eric b wrote:
>
> To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the main OpenOffice.org porting project web page. It was a disaster for OpenOffice.org because people were confused, and thought NeoOffice was the "official" Mac OS X port. This way, NeoOffice derivated a long time the porting project forces, including donations who were derivated too.
Careful how you rewrite history, Eric. At the time for reasons many of us know well, OpenOffice.org had no Mac OS X release that was usable by or attractive to an end-user. NeoOffice provided one, and it was appropriate to point to them. The situation did move on from there later, but the choice taken at the time (to ensure end-users were directed to a place they could get up-to-date, working code from a bona fides downstream project) was the right one and grew the overall OpenOffice.org user community significantly.
It also meant it was easy to prove there was indeed demand for a good Mac port. Without that earlier step I doubt Sun would have applied resources later to create a working Mac port.
S.
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi Rob,
Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>
> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo,
> like "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that
> include or are based on an Apache product.
This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache
OpenOffice.org websites should use the logo.
Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo.
But not the OpenOffice.org one.
> So it allows you to grow your own brand while accurately expressing
> your use of the Apache code. We'd need to think how this could work
> with products based on legacy OOo releases, pre Apache.
This is a bad track. Indeed, people are already completly confused.
At one recent event, I discussed with some around 20 average french
people (randomly, average users, not following OpenOffice.org story),
and the result is :
- Oracle is the current OpenOffice.org owner
- OpenOffice.org is no longer free and Oracle killed it
- LibreOffie is the new name of OpenOffice.org
- Apache OpenOffice is yet another fork, nobody knows and nobody cares.
It took me a long time to explain them what happened in meantime.
I invite everybody to repeat the test, and share what they obtain.
> But I think something similar could be discussed.
>
> If we wanted, we could also include a link on the main download
> page, pointing too White Label Office, but we'd need to be fair and
> offer the same kind of link to anyone else who was based on OOo,
> and who was respecting the trademarks, e.g., LibreOffice, Symphony,
> etc.
IMHO, the right decision is to NOT add external links at all : easy
to manage, and always fair for all.
To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one
NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the
main OpenOffice.org porting project web page. It was a disaster for
OpenOffice.org because people were confused, and thought NeoOffice
was the "official" Mac OS X port. This way, NeoOffice derivated a
long time the porting project forces, including donations who were
derivated too.
The case is exactly the same with LibreOffice today, and I strongly
suggest to retain the lesson of the past, and to not redo the same
mistake.
Defend the name, and control the logo usage, is ESSENTIAL. Just
wondering how long it will take to the Apache people, to understand
that it was the worse decision ever to rename** OpenOffice.org into
Apache OpenOffice (instead of Apache OpenOffice.org, far better).
Regards,
Eric Bachard
**I bet there are a lot of LibreOffice / TDF supporters in the list
of the people who voted for the change.
--
qɔᴉɹə
Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page
L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org
Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
2012/1/3 Götz Wohlberg <go...@googlemail.com>:
> Hi Don,
>
> Hope you had a relaxing xmas break!
>
> Am 23.12.11 02:44, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>
>> This seems like a much more constructive thread.
>>
>> FWIW, I know the guys at Team OO, well, at least since I first met them in
>> 2005 at OpenOffice.org Conference in Koper, Slovenia. There is passion and
>> continuity here that I think Pavel speaks very eloquently about. And it's
>> worth respecting and supporting, in my view.
>
> Thanks! I can only echo this.
>
>> This is especially true, if
>> they are sincere in stating they will move to exert their efforts as
>> volunteers in the future of Apache OpenOffice, once they are finished with
>> this maintenance release (3.3.1)...
>
> We would love to start joining the work on future version but we need to fix
> our other problem first, which is funding.
>
>> Sure, there have been blunders, but we here in AOO have not been so great
>> with clear communications, so let's face the future, so to speak,
>> together.
>>
>> To that end, why not offer the TeamOO guys a share of the brand, something
>> like 'White Label Office 3.3.1, Powered by OpenOffice.org, now at Apache
>> Software Foundation'?
>>
>> Or, 'White Label Office 3.3.1, Powered by Apache OpenOffice, the new home
>> of OpenOffice.org'
>
> Great! That's certainly something we are interested in. I would like to see
> some more details about such a "Powered by"-program.
>
You can read more about it here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html#poweredby
We don't currently have something like this for AOO, but the PPMC
could propose such a program.
Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo,
like "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that
include or are based on an Apache product. So it allows you to grow
your own brand while accurately expressing your use of the Apache
code.
We'd need to think how this could work with products based on legacy
OOo releases, pre Apache. But I think something similar could be
discussed.
If we wanted, we could also include a link on the main download page,
pointing too White Label Office, but we'd need to be fair and offer
the same kind of link to anyone else who was based on OOo, and who was
respecting the trademarks, e.g., LibreOffice, Symphony, etc.
-Rob