You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com> on 2011/12/21 23:10:29 UTC
Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Today Team OpenOffice released a "White Label Office" based off the
3.3 code. The press release is rather clumsily worded and their
website is still not in compliance with our trademark policy. However,
I do recognise that TeamOO appear to be seeking to address our
concerns.
Götz Wohlberg said on this list [1] " We [TEAM OO]] want to be a
committer to the Apache OpenOffice
podling and we basically share the same goals." Similar sentiments
appear on their FAQ "Joined forces would be the best for everybody
involved and the entire user base" [2]
This seems like a strange statment since at least two members of the
TeamOO organisation are committers and PPMC members on this project,
at out invitation. However, we have yet to see any contribution to
AOO. It seems that work has been progressing on what is to all intents
and purposes a fork. This is damaging to the AOO project.
It might not be clear why this move is confusing and damaging. To
illustrate the situation we should consider articles written by
journalists who have not reached out to Apache for an explanation.
They are writing things like "Making all this even more
interesting--and, it must be said, confusing--is that Germany-based
Team OpenOffice.org on Wednesday published a release candidate based
on OpenOffice.org ... Is that the smell of yet another fork in the
works?"
So, how do we remove this confusion and move forwards?
I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I'm willing to accept that this is
all the result of really poor marketing (TeamOO are excellent
engineers, we can't expect them to also be excellent marketeers).
Assuming that my generous nature is not going to make a fool of me,
TeamOO must participate in this community as equals.
We welcome TeamOO as equals. This means no special privileges over
anyone else in relation to trademarks or code. This means no more
unnecessary finger pointing in press releases, or questionable
statements on the TeamOO website. This means working with our
community, using the infrastructure and facilities provided by the
foundation.
I suggest that if TeamOO will take a moment to understand how AOO is
different from the benevolent dictatorship that existed in
OpenOffice.org they will find that their dream of building a
profitable and professional company around the code that is so
important to them will come true. Look around the Apache ecosystem,
there are thousands of such companies in our various projects. There
are no shortage of models to follow here.
Finally, a word on trademarks and development processes here at the ASF.
The Apache Software Foundation has been developing Open Source
Software for longer than OpenOffice.org has existed. We have over 100
top level projects and 50 incubating projects. The majority of these
projects are a fundamental part of a great many companies business
models. Our policies and processes have been defined to make it easy
for third parties to collaborate regardless of their business models.
It is unfortunate that Team OO found it necessary to include
statements such as "Team OpenOffice.org and the ASF could not reach an
agreement for a shared usage" of the OpenOffice.org name n their press
releases and FAQs. It was explained to Team OO, as far bask as
September, that their release could be "White Label Office powered by
Apache OpenOffice" or "Team OO powered by Apache OpenOffice" or pretty
much anything along those lines. These are the same rules that all
downstream releases must comply with.
It was also explained that Team OO is welcome to release the code as
"White Label Office" and give no credit to Apache other than that
required by the license (which requires no attribution to Apache, at
least in marketing materials).
These are the options open to TeamOO and everyone else who wishes to
use our code.
This is not a negotiable point.
Ross
[1] http://markmail.org/message/ygtfcphurfbh5jul
[2] http://teamopenoffice.org/en/faq-en.html
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
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
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by 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.
> 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 Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
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. 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)...
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'
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.
Yes?
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 Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.
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 "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
I don't know where this fits in this thread, if anywhere, but I can't resist.
1. When I first saw the name, White Label Office, what came to mind was "generic" office. There was a brief time when generic (and bulk) branding of staples became the rage in supermarkets. The typical white-label package was that - a simple white label on the tin, with the name of the product without any brand (e.g., "frozen peas" and "tomato paste").
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.
- Dennis
PS: I presume this is an LGPL release too. If so, it should show up in the installer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:asf@shanecurcuru.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 18:19
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
[ ... ]
I'm not sure I'd use terms like "false" in this context. But I do agree
(and am glad to see a specific user experience like this) that the TOO
messaging and press around the White Label Office, when taken as a
whole, is clearly confusing to users.
[ ... ]
I presume (but have not verified) that TOO has taken the original
GPL\LGPL licensed code from the earlier Sun/Oracle repositories and used
that for their White Label Office.
[ ... ]
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-12-21 8:28 PM, Thomas Horn wrote:
> Sorry for the formatting, I'll try again if it comes out better now;
> I'm not such a computer expert as all the developers on the list :-).
Thank you, Thomas, for speaking up! Many of the mentors do realize that
the ooo-dev@ list can be quite daunting to approach for newcomers -
especially non-developers, so we certainly appreciate your honest feedback.
There's a lot here, at the moment I only have a few comments.
> as I have only susbcried around a months ago because I found TOOo
> messaging about donations and source code sponsors suspicious, I still
> get the impression that they are somehow not "playing with open
> cards".
>
> So as TOOo asked for clear feedback in the other thread, I just
> thought I'd throw in my $.02. All of this being my opion -- the
> perspective of a user -- only, of course.
>
> If I read the annoucement about "White Label Office" and all the
> website, I get the impression that they somehow want to conceive the
> message that they are "the official partner"/"development leader" of
> OpenOffice.org. It isn't expressed explicitly anywhere but it is
> manifested in many small aspects, which are not lies but very near
> too.
>
> E.g. "first to be published since the withdrawal of the main sponsor
> ORACLE" [1] implies some "official" continuity of versioning, which
> IMHO can only be provided by ASF. On the other hand, as it stands,
> it's just false as "White Label Office" uses the sources granted by
> Oracle under LGPL v3 as LibreOffice does. So there is no difference
> between LibreOffice and "White Label Office", with LibreOffice having
> released versions BEFORE "White Label Office".
I'm not sure I'd use terms like "false" in this context. But I do agree
(and am glad to see a specific user experience like this) that the TOO
messaging and press around the White Label Office, when taken as a
whole, is clearly confusing to users.
>
> Another thing is to insist on the "fact that about 95% of the current
> source code is a product of the programming of the engineering team in
> Hamburg" [2], implying some sort of copyright on most of the code of
> OOo/AOO, which is plainly wrong as the engineering team did this as
> part of their duties at Sun/Oracle, with Sun/Oracle and now ASF being
> the copyright owner of any of their work.
The ASF does not require (nor ask for) copyright assignment, so this is
not necessarily an important point. Oracle has licensed the bulk of the
OOo software to the ASF under the permissive Apache License, and as
such, the ASF is now licensing that software under our license to
everyone. Thus people really are free to use the code that they get
from this podling in just about any way they choose, under the Apache
License - as long as they respect our trademarks.
I presume (but have not verified) that TOO has taken the original
GPL\LGPL licensed code from the earlier Sun/Oracle repositories and used
that for their White Label Office.
>
> And lastly, I feel a bit alienated by sentences like "die farbigen
> Dokumenten-Icons, die trotz Protest der Anwender unter der Regie von
> Oracle ersetzt wurden" (only in the German version of the page [3], in
> english it is something like: "the colored document icons, which were
> removed under the regime of Oracle despite the protest of the users").
> I understand this as some form of taking revenge on Oracle (but this
> might only be my interpretation), which, I think, anybody in the
> community should avoid at all, given the generous move of Oracle to
> donate OpenOffice.org to ASF. And of course, it somehow feels funny
> given the fact that the key members of TOOo were originally in favor
> of the change [4].
>
> While "White Label Office" seems to be on the okay side legally
> (though the use of the logo with the gulls is somehow questionable,
> with [5] suggesting that Oracle saw it as their trademark, too), I do
> not think that I will help very much in bringing AOO forward. I do not
> think that anybody in corporate will switch from OpenOffice.org to a
> software called "White Label Office", so only home users misguided by
> misleading articles in computer magazines, suggesting "White Label
> Office" as an official OpenOffice.org release might use it.
Indeed, the use of the gull logos is problematic, since they're a clear
identifier of the software product itself.
>
> So I think, the only reasonable thing would be for ASF to release an
> OOo 3.3.1 if there is consesus that such a version (I suspect that it
> is needed, however, given the big progress of AOO and the fact that a
> lot of things will have to change in AOO 3.4 anyhow; but this is just
> my $.02), maybe even provided/compiled by TOOo.
>
> But - as this directly stoke into my eye when trying "White Label
> Office" - if done so, it will clearly not be allowed to have a
> "Donate..." button on the Welcome Screen as "White Label Office" now
> has (btw: I would advise not to use team@openoffice.org as PayPal
> account as it negatively adds to the image of trying to be "official"
> and will be away soon anyhow; even more offtopic, it might even be
> good for TOOo to change to a name without OOo in it to have a clear
> cut and avoid any suspicion) or even have any reference to TOOo. Then,
> I think, TOOo would really help to improve the transition.
>
> Greetings and all the best for Christmas fromThomas
Best wishes for health and happiness on your holidays!
- Shane
>
> [1] http://teamopenoffice.org/en/free-download.html[2]
> http://teamopenoffice.org/en/faq-en.html[3]
> http://teamopenoffice.org/de/faq.html[4]
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ESC_meeting_minutes_20090309#proposal_for_unified_ODF_Document_icons[5]
> http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
We have neglected OpenOffice.org users long enough.
Now let us think about what will be good for our existing users and
our future users.
"White Label Office 3.3.1" is a bad idea, I think.
Who will welcome "White Label Office 3.3.1"?
Has Team OpenOffice.org e.V. got customers who welcome White Label
Office 3.3.1 and will be happy to migrate OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 to
White Label Office 3.3.1?
Although it is the case for European users, it will not be the case
for other users including Asian and Japanese users.
http://teamopenoffice.org/en/free-download.html?id=48:downloadmatrix-en&catid=14:pages
White Label Office 3.3.1 has only English, Français, Deutsch, Italiano
and Español versions.
I won't ask Team OpenOffice.org e.V.to build White Label Office 3.3.1
Japanese version.
I won't tell Japanese users about White Label Office 3.3.1
A lot of Japanese OpenOffice.org users are waiting for OOo 3.3.1 not WLO 3.3.1.
If Team OpenOffice.org e.V. is really serious about bridging the gap
between OOo and AOOo and releasing OpenOffice.org 3.3.1, don't give
up, be die-hard, try to convince as many people as possible on this
list that Team OpenOffice.org e.V. needs to use the name of
OpenOffice.org and ask the ASF again and again to permit Team
OpenOffice.org e.V. to use the name of OpenOffice.org for only the
release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 and for your organization name.
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Pavel Janík <Pa...@Janik.cz>.
> I understand this as some form of taking revenge on Oracle (but this
> might only be my interpretation), which, I think, anybody in the
> community should avoid at all, given the generous move of Oracle to
> donate OpenOffice.org to ASF.
This exactly is "seeing only one side of the coin" I wrote in my mail. Yes, if you do not have any OOo history, then Oracle did a good thing. My opinion is that they did good thing but they have chosen the worst way to do it.
I think that anyone in the community is free to express they own opinions. And their opinions depend on their knowledge, history and current mood.
> But - as this directly stoke into my eye when trying "White Label
> Office" - if done so, it will clearly not be allowed to have a
> "Donate..." button on the Welcome Screen as "White Label Office" now
> has (btw: I would advise not to use team@openoffice.org as PayPal
> account as it negatively adds to the image of trying to be "official"
> and will be away soon anyhow; even more offtopic, it might even be
> good for TOOo to change to a name without OOo in it to have a clear
> cut and avoid any suspicion) or even have any reference to TOOo. Then,
> I think, TOOo would really help to improve the transition.
... but I agree with the rest of your message and expect TOOo to answer to your questions HERE ;-)
--
Pavel Janík
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Thomas Horn <th...@googlemail.com>.
Sorry for the formatting, I'll try again if it comes out better now;
I'm not such a computer expert as all the developers on the list :-).
-----
Hi all,
as I have only susbcried around a months ago because I found TOOo
messaging about donations and source code sponsors suspicious, I still
get the impression that they are somehow not "playing with open
cards".
So as TOOo asked for clear feedback in the other thread, I just
thought I'd throw in my $.02. All of this being my opion -- the
perspective of a user -- only, of course.
If I read the annoucement about "White Label Office" and all the
website, I get the impression that they somehow want to conceive the
message that they are "the official partner"/"development leader" of
OpenOffice.org. It isn't expressed explicitly anywhere but it is
manifested in many small aspects, which are not lies but very near
too.
E.g. "first to be published since the withdrawal of the main sponsor
ORACLE" [1] implies some "official" continuity of versioning, which
IMHO can only be provided by ASF. On the other hand, as it stands,
it's just false as "White Label Office" uses the sources granted by
Oracle under LGPL v3 as LibreOffice does. So there is no difference
between LibreOffice and "White Label Office", with LibreOffice having
released versions BEFORE "White Label Office".
Another thing is to insist on the "fact that about 95% of the current
source code is a product of the programming of the engineering team in
Hamburg" [2], implying some sort of copyright on most of the code of
OOo/AOO, which is plainly wrong as the engineering team did this as
part of their duties at Sun/Oracle, with Sun/Oracle and now ASF being
the copyright owner of any of their work.
And lastly, I feel a bit alienated by sentences like "die farbigen
Dokumenten-Icons, die trotz Protest der Anwender unter der Regie von
Oracle ersetzt wurden" (only in the German version of the page [3], in
english it is something like: "the colored document icons, which were
removed under the regime of Oracle despite the protest of the users").
I understand this as some form of taking revenge on Oracle (but this
might only be my interpretation), which, I think, anybody in the
community should avoid at all, given the generous move of Oracle to
donate OpenOffice.org to ASF. And of course, it somehow feels funny
given the fact that the key members of TOOo were originally in favor
of the change [4].
While "White Label Office" seems to be on the okay side legally
(though the use of the logo with the gulls is somehow questionable,
with [5] suggesting that Oracle saw it as their trademark, too), I do
not think that I will help very much in bringing AOO forward. I do not
think that anybody in corporate will switch from OpenOffice.org to a
software called "White Label Office", so only home users misguided by
misleading articles in computer magazines, suggesting "White Label
Office" as an official OpenOffice.org release might use it.
So I think, the only reasonable thing would be for ASF to release an
OOo 3.3.1 if there is consesus that such a version (I suspect that it
is needed, however, given the big progress of AOO and the fact that a
lot of things will have to change in AOO 3.4 anyhow; but this is just
my $.02), maybe even provided/compiled by TOOo.
But - as this directly stoke into my eye when trying "White Label
Office" - if done so, it will clearly not be allowed to have a
"Donate..." button on the Welcome Screen as "White Label Office" now
has (btw: I would advise not to use team@openoffice.org as PayPal
account as it negatively adds to the image of trying to be "official"
and will be away soon anyhow; even more offtopic, it might even be
good for TOOo to change to a name without OOo in it to have a clear
cut and avoid any suspicion) or even have any reference to TOOo. Then,
I think, TOOo would really help to improve the transition.
Greetings and all the best for Christmas fromThomas
[1] http://teamopenoffice.org/en/free-download.html[2]
http://teamopenoffice.org/en/faq-en.html[3]
http://teamopenoffice.org/de/faq.html[4]
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ESC_meeting_minutes_20090309#proposal_for_unified_ODF_Document_icons[5]
http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Thomas Horn <th...@googlemail.com>.
Hi all,
as I have only susbcried around a months ago because I found TOOo
messaging about donations and source code sponsors suspicious, I still
get the impression that they are somehow not "playing with open
cards".
So as TOOo asked for clear feedback in the other thread, I just
thought I'd throw in my $.02. All of this being my opion -- the
perspective of a user -- only, of course.
If I read the annoucement about "White Label Office" and all the
website, I get the impression that they somehow want to conceive the
message that they are "the official partner"/"development leader" of
OpenOffice.org. It isn't expressed explicitly anywhere but it is
manifested in many small aspects, which are not lies but very near
too.
E.g. "first to be published since the withdrawal of the main sponsor
ORACLE" [1] implies some "official" continuity of versioning, which
IMHO can only be provided by ASF. On the other hand, as it stands,
it's just false as "White Label Office" uses the sources granted by
Oracle under LGPL v3 as LibreOffice does. So there is no difference
between LibreOffice and "White Label Office", with LibreOffice having
released versions BEFORE "White Label Office".
Another thing is to insist on the "fact that about 95% of the current
source code is a product of the programming of the engineering team in
Hamburg" [2], implying some sort of copyright on most of the code of
OOo/AOO, which is plainly wrong as the engineering team did this as
part of their duties at Sun/Oracle, with Sun/Oracle and now ASF being
the copyright owner of any of their work.
And lastly, I feel a bit alienated by sentences like "die farbigen
Dokumenten-Icons, die trotz Protest der Anwender unter der Regie von
Oracle ersetzt wurden" (only in the German version of the page [3], in
english it is something like: "the colored document icons, which were
removed under the regime of Oracle despite the protest of the users").
I understand this as some form of taking revenge on Oracle (but this
might only be my interpretation), which, I think, anybody in the
community should avoid at all, given the generous move of Oracle to
donate OpenOffice.org to ASF. And of course, it somehow feels funny
given the fact that the key members of TOOo were originally in favor
of the change [4].
While "White Label Office" seems to be on the okay side legally
(though the use of the logo with the gulls is somehow questionable,
with [5] suggesting that Oracle saw it as their trademark, too), I do
not think that I will help very much in bringing AOO forward. I do not
think that anybody in corporate will switch from OpenOffice.org to a
software called "White Label Office", so only home users misguided by
misleading articles in computer magazines, suggesting "White Label
Office" as an official OpenOffice.org release might use it.
So I think, the only reasonable thing would be for ASF to release an
OOo 3.3.1 if there is consesus that such a version (I suspect that it
is needed, however, given the big progress of AOO and the fact that a
lot of things will have to change in AOO 3.4 anyhow; but this is just
my $.02), maybe even provided/compiled by TOOo.
But - as this directly stoke into my eye when trying "White Label
Office" - if done so, it will clearly not be allowed to have a
"Donate..." button on the Welcome Screen as "White Label Office" now
has (btw: I would advise not to use team@openoffice.org as PayPal
account as it negatively adds to the image of trying to be "official"
and will be away soon anyhow; even more offtopic, it might even be
good for TOOo to change to a name without OOo in it to have a clear
cut and avoid any suspicion) or even have any reference to TOOo. Then,
I think, TOOo would really help to improve the transition.
Greetings and all the best for Christmas fromThomas
[1] http://teamopenoffice.org/en/free-download.html[2]
http://teamopenoffice.org/en/faq-en.html[3]
http://teamopenoffice.org/de/faq.html[4]
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ESC_meeting_minutes_20090309#proposal_for_unified_ODF_Document_icons[5]
http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Pedro,
Hi Pedro,
On Dec 21, 2011, at 5:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Dave;
>
> --- Mer 21/12/11, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha scritto:
> ...
>> Pavel,
>>
>> Thank you for your perspective. I think a properly released
>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 is totally possible.. I recall Martin
>> came to the list with the idea. We took separate paths.
>
> OOo 3.3.1 is impossible, We only release stuff under AL2.
> I am sympathetic to such release but I don't see it possible.
The keyword is "properly" - it is only possible with correct branding and attribution. This is an invitation to a public discussion. It becomes moot as this project picks up steam.
I've been seeing Martin and Stephan's names all over the website.
>
>> There is now a chance to bring these paths together.
>>
>
> That indeed can happen. We will surely want to fold TOO's
> changes into AOO 3.4 (except for some of the branding stuff
> that we still have to do on our own).
>
>> But the discussion has to happen here on the Apache
>> OpenOffice (incubating) project list in public.
>>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>> Oracle assigned the trademarks to the Apache Software
>> Foundation and now the ASF as a non-profit must hold that
>> asset in trust for the public.
>>
>> www.openoffice.org will be on Apache Infrastructure soon.
>> It will remain. Versions like 3.3.1 could be supported.
>> Every committer to AOO has authority to edit the website.
>> Even that is under CTR.
>>
>
> The WWW migration is becoming increasingly important.
Certainly - ooo-site-staging.apache.org just got two more topnavs. I'm cleaning up mail subscriptions and we are down to some last policy pages. It is close..... see Kay's thread.
> As a
> result of the Open Letter we were Slashdotted:
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/12/21/1612224/asf-lays-out-its-plan-for-openofficeorg
>
> Some of the comments denote deep misunderstanding of the
> incubator's work and still point to the openoffice.org site.
>
> I don't think at this point we should worry too much about
> what TOO does or doesn't, the spotlight is here, and I am
> pretty sure everyone is curious of what will come out in
> Apache OpenOffice 3.4.
Yes. Who's going to write a new blog entry.
Regards,
Dave
>
> cheers,
>
> Pedro.
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Dave;
--- Mer 21/12/11, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> ha scritto:
...
> Pavel,
>
> Thank you for your perspective. I think a properly released
> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 is totally possible.. I recall Martin
> came to the list with the idea. We took separate paths.
OOo 3.3.1 is impossible, We only release stuff under AL2.
I am sympathetic to such release but I don't see it possible.
> There is now a chance to bring these paths together.
>
That indeed can happen. We will surely want to fold TOO's
changes into AOO 3.4 (except for some of the branding stuff
that we still have to do on our own).
> But the discussion has to happen here on the Apache
> OpenOffice (incubating) project list in public.
>
Absolutely.
> Oracle assigned the trademarks to the Apache Software
> Foundation and now the ASF as a non-profit must hold that
> asset in trust for the public.
>
> www.openoffice.org will be on Apache Infrastructure soon.
> It will remain. Versions like 3.3.1 could be supported.
> Every committer to AOO has authority to edit the website.
> Even that is under CTR.
>
The WWW migration is becoming increasingly important. As a
result of the Open Letter we were Slashdotted:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/12/21/1612224/asf-lays-out-its-plan-for-openofficeorg
Some of the comments denote deep misunderstanding of the
incubator's work and still point to the openoffice.org site.
I don't think at this point we should worry too much about
what TOO does or doesn't, the spotlight is here, and I am
pretty sure everyone is curious of what will come out in
Apache OpenOffice 3.4.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Pavel,
Thank you for your perspective. I think a properly released OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 is totally possible.. I recall Martin came to the list with the idea. We took separate paths. There is now a chance to bring these paths together.
But the discussion has to happen here on the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project list in public.
Oracle assigned the trademarks to the Apache Software Foundation and now the ASF as a non-profit must hold that asset in trust for the public.
www.openoffice.org will be on Apache Infrastructure soon. It will remain. Versions like 3.3.1 could be supported. Every committer to AOO has authority to edit the website. Even that is under CTR.
I've spent a lot of time migrating the NLC project websites. The OpenOffice.org ecosystem does indeed have an historical branding standard that is at odds with Apache's. Team OpenOffice.org's name is an example. For the OOo ecosystem we have a prefix - Team OOo, Greek OOo, Mongolian OOo, Foo OOo. For Apache it is the other way - everything must be Apache Foo.
Who knows, it might even be possible to find a way to continue with OpenOffice.org 3.4 as the next version. But to do that a very compelling argument would need to be developed here in public.
Regards,
Dave
On Dec 21, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Pavel Janík wrote:
> [ Long mail from non-English native speaker, not written on mobile device ;-) ]
>
> Ross,
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> Today Team OpenOffice released a "White Label Office" based off the
>> 3.3 code.
>
> ...
>
> I think the core issue here is "responsibility to users", "credibility of the product" and "bridging the gap between the last OOo and the first AOOo".
>
> It is very easy to feel like a member of the project that has just started, has no users (because there is no release yet) and has no history. And I perfectly understand it - I was in the same situation 9 or so years ago. I did not care at all about StarOffice users and I was very unhappy to see some references to it in OOo source code and even reported issues about such things (resulting in some ..._so modules etc.).
>
> It is not very easy when you have been living with some product, some project, and you were at the heart of the project for a long time, it was your daily bread, you know a lot of people who were using the product and want to use it in the future ("responsibility to users").
>
> I perfectly understand how Martin, Stefan and Matthias feel. I know them very well. I understand their motivation. And I trust them!!!
>
> ...
>
> All committers here do what they can to fix IP issues so Apache (WE!) can release AOOo. But Team OOo thinks it is not enough to bridge the gap.
>
> What has to be done now IMO?
>
> Team OOo:
>
> 1. work closely with Apache team to get trademarks cleaned up.
>
> 2. clean FAQ and fix other issues that arise on non-technical level.
>
> 3. join the work here (I can imagine how Matthias feels when he has to read all mails here ;-), explain your goals more clearly. Some people here do not get your goals (and it is not their fault! It is your fault - you are not expressing them well...).
>
> Apache:
>
> 1. help Team OOo bridge the release gap between OOo and AOOo (because it helps to bring legacy users forward to AOOo, smooths the transition) OR start thinking what can be done without Team OOo to bridge the gap.
>
> It is all about communication...
>
> Oracle did a lot of good to Apache but they did a lot of bad to OpenOffice.org users and developers. You can't choose only the first or the second part of the sentence. Both are true and you have to see them both. More and more I read (repeated) mails from "Apache only, not OOo" (sorry to say it this way) people, I see that you only see the first part of the sentence. That doesn't mean I'm saying the trademarks are here to be violated!
>
> Note: I have yet to see worst management decision than Oracle's decision to transfer OOo to Apache *this way*. They simply cut the costs throwing their users to the air and damaging their name in the community so badly that they will need another 10 years to get the same "sound". And additionally Apache (WE!) can't find the right solution to this "bridging the gap" problem (ideas? dual licensing, gradual IP cleanup?). Do WE (Apache) care at all? Do we see both sides of the coin?
> --
> Pavel Janík
>
>
>
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 22/12/2011 Pavel Janík wrote:
> I think the core issue here is "responsibility to users",
> "credibility of the product" and "bridging the gap between the last
> OOo and the first AOOo".
Exactly. And it could be that it's Christmas and good sentiments
prevail, but I still see possible that this project and
TeamOpenOffice.org find a common understanding and fix the issues before
a stable version 3.3.1.
As shown by reactions to the (quite unfortunate) press release, Apache
OpenOffice and TeamOpenOffice.org can be either significantly useful to
each other or significantly harmful to each other. Their shared
interests are so many that they can't ignore each other. Let's try to be
mutually useful then.
TeamOpenOffice.org can bring a lot to the Apache OpenOffice project with
little effort:
- Turn the Pootle server back on and allow migration of data
- Use their Kenai roles (or just knowledge) to help us in completing the
infrastructure migration
- Find the much-needed TCM testcases so that, after checking with
Oracle, we can use them for QA activities
- Tell us all details about the Single-sign-on at openoffice.org
- A lot more...
And, once the issues related to trademarks and misleading communication
have been fixed, we could work towards OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 together.
I'm not saying that Apache OpenOffice should authorize
TeamOpenOffice.org to use the trademark for an external release, I'd
just prefer to use this (easy) release as an exercise for the Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 release: it wouldn't be a waste of time, since we
probably have several QA volunteers that need something to test before
becoming involved with the project and we need to develop some
lightweight QA processes, which could be faster if we have an actual
version to release.
In the end this would allow:
- Users to get an intermediate OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with security fixes
and a transitional Apache branding (like "OpenOffice.org powered by
Apache OpenOffice"), and be confident that they can migrate successfully
to Apache OpenOffice 3.4 at due time.
- Apache OpenOffice to build a QA team and processes on the basis of
some actual work to do, and use the TeamOpenOffice.org expertise for the
many small tasks above.
- TeamOpenOffice.org to have a prominent role in this release and fix
their communication campaign.
Of course I'm ignoring a couple of significant problems (licensing and
hosting) which would need to be addressed, but the "starting fresh"
concept can't work for a product with such a large user base.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Posted by Pavel Janík <Pa...@Janik.cz>.
[ Long mail from non-English native speaker, not written on mobile device ;-) ]
Ross,
On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:10 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Today Team OpenOffice released a "White Label Office" based off the
> 3.3 code.
...
I think the core issue here is "responsibility to users", "credibility of the product" and "bridging the gap between the last OOo and the first AOOo".
It is very easy to feel like a member of the project that has just started, has no users (because there is no release yet) and has no history. And I perfectly understand it - I was in the same situation 9 or so years ago. I did not care at all about StarOffice users and I was very unhappy to see some references to it in OOo source code and even reported issues about such things (resulting in some ..._so modules etc.).
It is not very easy when you have been living with some product, some project, and you were at the heart of the project for a long time, it was your daily bread, you know a lot of people who were using the product and want to use it in the future ("responsibility to users").
I perfectly understand how Martin, Stefan and Matthias feel. I know them very well. I understand their motivation. And I trust them!!!
...
All committers here do what they can to fix IP issues so Apache (WE!) can release AOOo. But Team OOo thinks it is not enough to bridge the gap.
What has to be done now IMO?
Team OOo:
1. work closely with Apache team to get trademarks cleaned up.
2. clean FAQ and fix other issues that arise on non-technical level.
3. join the work here (I can imagine how Matthias feels when he has to read all mails here ;-), explain your goals more clearly. Some people here do not get your goals (and it is not their fault! It is your fault - you are not expressing them well...).
Apache:
1. help Team OOo bridge the release gap between OOo and AOOo (because it helps to bring legacy users forward to AOOo, smooths the transition) OR start thinking what can be done without Team OOo to bridge the gap.
It is all about communication...
Oracle did a lot of good to Apache but they did a lot of bad to OpenOffice.org users and developers. You can't choose only the first or the second part of the sentence. Both are true and you have to see them both. More and more I read (repeated) mails from "Apache only, not OOo" (sorry to say it this way) people, I see that you only see the first part of the sentence. That doesn't mean I'm saying the trademarks are here to be violated!
Note: I have yet to see worst management decision than Oracle's decision to transfer OOo to Apache *this way*. They simply cut the costs throwing their users to the air and damaging their name in the community so badly that they will need another 10 years to get the same "sound". And additionally Apache (WE!) can't find the right solution to this "bridging the gap" problem (ideas? dual licensing, gradual IP cleanup?). Do WE (Apache) care at all? Do we see both sides of the coin?
--
Pavel Janík