You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> on 2013/01/30 16:12:14 UTC
Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number
of reasons.
Let's wait and see; Fedora 19 is nicknamed "Schroedinger's cat" after
all. The Fedora 19 release schedule, as an exception to the common
Fedora conventions, will not be time-based but feature-based: features
accepted by the Fedora Board will be considered before drafting the
schedule. Anyway, optimally it would allow to package OpenOffice 4.0
(and there would be work to do on the OpenOffice and the Fedora side to
get OpenOffice properly packaged).
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Albino Biasutti Neto <bi...@albino.ws>.
Hi
2013/1/30 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>:
> Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
> planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
I am currently a user of Fedora. Has a good initiative.
--
Albino Biasutti Neto
Software Livre | Open Source | Free Software
albino.ws
identi.ca/bino28
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 January 2013 23:10, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> This is a great step, Andrea. Apache OpenOffice has many Linux users.
>> We see this in the download numbers. But today the install
>> experience is, like many things in Linux, more complicated than the
>> average immigrant from Windows-land is accustomed to. So making this
>> real simple will be key.
>
>
> FWIW, I found installing the download debs in Ubuntu completely straightforward.
>
Congratulations, David! It is always good to hear from a satisfied user.
-Rob
>
> - d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 30 January 2013 23:10, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> This is a great step, Andrea. Apache OpenOffice has many Linux users.
> We see this in the download numbers. But today the install
> experience is, like many things in Linux, more complicated than the
> average immigrant from Windows-land is accustomed to. So making this
> real simple will be key.
FWIW, I found installing the download debs in Ubuntu completely straightforward.
- d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Hagar Delest <ha...@laposte.net>.
Le 31/01/2013 00:10, Rob Weir a écrit :
> This is a great step, Andrea. Apache OpenOffice has many Linux users.
> We see this in the download numbers. But today the install
> experience is, like many things in Linux, more complicated than the
> average immigrant from Windows-land is accustomed to. So making this
> real simple will be key.
Especially true with Ubuntu: installing AOO is a nightmare for beginners because of the integration of the default application in the system.
The application that gets installed by default has a real advantage.
Hagar
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
> planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
>
> You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
> distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number of
> reasons.
>
This is a great step, Andrea. Apache OpenOffice has many Linux users.
We see this in the download numbers. But today the install
experience is, like many things in Linux, more complicated than the
average immigrant from Windows-land is accustomed to. So making this
real simple will be key.
Thanks again for your efforts!
-Rob
> Let's wait and see; Fedora 19 is nicknamed "Schroedinger's cat" after all.
> The Fedora 19 release schedule, as an exception to the common Fedora
> conventions, will not be time-based but feature-based: features accepted by
> the Fedora Board will be considered before drafting the schedule. Anyway,
> optimally it would allow to package OpenOffice 4.0 (and there would be work
> to do on the OpenOffice and the Fedora side to get OpenOffice properly
> packaged).
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
> hijacked if you want by LibreOffice.
Fedora won't reassign aliases unless a default program is replaced
(i.e., unless OpenOffice becomes a default program, which it won't in
F19). Anyway the aliases are a minor problem, since people are expected
to use menus.
> And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
> why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
No, there are two classes of aliases: simple launchers like "oowriter",
that can be renamed with no major problems, and reserved names like
"soffice" and "unopkg", that will be fixed at a packaging level, i.e.,
the user will be able to choose which one is the "soffice" application
to use. The mechanism is like this
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives even though Fedora
suggests not to use it but environment modules, which I still must
investigate.
> Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
> soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
> applications.
Exactly. This is why we need special handling for it.
> The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
> should we change them?
> It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
> what belongs to OpenOffice.
It's clear that oowriter was just squatted, or reassigned for continuity
with the idea that no program would claim it back again. However, if we
want to claim it, we won't be able to be in the Fedora repositories, see
above. And the major benefit to users comes from having OpenOffice
available in repositories, not from having the nicest command-line aliases.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
> hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in
> the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
> because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
> fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and
> will provide future versions.
>
+1
FC
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:20 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >> Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
> >>> anything but OpenOffice:
> >>> sudo yum install openoffice.org
> >>
> >> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and
> I
> >> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
> >> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a
> >> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready.
> >>
>
This renaming or re-aliasing or whatever you want to call it is simply
unconscionable by my way of thinking. I brought this up before though
somewhat couched. It IS a software trademark and perhaps copyright
infringement in my mind.
>
> > We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
> > hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in
> > the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
> > because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
> > fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and
> > will provide future versions.
> >
>
> It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by
> this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get
> something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't
> offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles
> with Pepsi.
>
YES, you are correct!!!!!
>
> > And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
> > why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
> >
> > Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
> > soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
> > applications.
> >
> > The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
> > should we change them?
>
again, yes!
> >
> > It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
> > what belongs to OpenOffice.
>
1000% agree with this statement!
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"A great deal of talent is lost to the world
for want of a little courage."
-- Sydney Smith
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:51 AM, RA Stehmann
<an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
> Am 07.02.2013 13:26, schrieb janI:
>
>> If it is so classic, then for sure the ASF laywers could inform Fedora
>> about the problem, and ask them to correct it, independently of whether or
>> not AOO is distribtuted. I assume that since they are the distributors they
>> need to make sure that their contributors uses valid trademarks.
>>
>> This might be a problem on other distros as well.
>>
>> Or is life not as simple as I think ?
>>
> No, it isn't.
>
> It isn't really nice to sue another free software project.
>
Please don't put words in anyone's mouth. No one, other than you,
mentioned suing. One value of lawyers is that they know how to craft
a letter that *does not* escalate things by implying a lawsuit. This
is important.
> And using trademarks to break another free software projects will, seems
> no good idea nor a good public relation since Mozilla tried it. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
>
> Because of the licence it's quite easy to fork and rebrand AOO, so we've
> to be carefully to guard and promote our brand and save the respect of
> our project in the free software community.
>
And part of guarding the brand is to ensure that trademarks are not
used without permission. We must require permission for the
trademarks to be used. This is not a requirement we can ignore. But
this does not mean that we encourage another Iceweasel thing. That
does not logically follow, because we're only talking about the
requirement to **ask permission**.
The 2nd half of this is that when asked, we be very reasonable and
grant permission for uses that are reasonable, supports the community,
don't confuse the user, acknowledges the trademark, etc. We've
granted permission to use the trademark dozens of times since the
OpenOffice project came to Apache.
-Rob
> Regards
> Michael
>
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 07.02.2013 13:26, schrieb janI:
> If it is so classic, then for sure the ASF laywers could inform Fedora
> about the problem, and ask them to correct it, independently of whether or
> not AOO is distribtuted. I assume that since they are the distributors they
> need to make sure that their contributors uses valid trademarks.
>
> This might be a problem on other distros as well.
>
> Or is life not as simple as I think ?
>
No, it isn't.
It isn't really nice to sue another free software project.
And using trademarks to break another free software projects will, seems
no good idea nor a good public relation since Mozilla tried it. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debian_project
Because of the licence it's quite easy to fork and rebrand AOO, so we've
to be carefully to guard and promote our brand and save the respect of
our project in the free software community.
Regards
Michael
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 7 February 2013 13:46, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:26 AM, janI <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 7 February 2013 13:20, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >> >> Rob Weir wrote:
> >> >>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this
> installed
> >> >>> anything but OpenOffice:
> >> >>> sudo yum install openoffice.org
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed
> and
> >> I
> >> >> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
> >> >> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but
> just a
> >> >> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages
> ready.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they
> were
> >> > hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name
> in
> >> > the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
> >> > because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
> >> > fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version
> and
> >> > will provide future versions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by
> >> this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get
> >> something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't
> >> offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles
> >> with Pepsi.
> >>
> > If it is so classic, then for sure the ASF laywers could inform Fedora
> > about the problem, and ask them to correct it, independently of whether
> or
> > not AOO is distribtuted. I assume that since they are the distributors
> they
> > need to make sure that their contributors uses valid trademarks.
> >
> > This might be a problem on other distros as well.
> >
> > Or is life not as simple as I think ?
> >
>
> I wouldn't start with the lawyers. But we could start by expressing
> concern.
>
I meant informing our laywers, so they are aware of the problem....I think
they would be good at helping us expressing concern in the right tone, and
then they are involved.
>
> Another option is to give them written permission to use the trademark
> for that limited purpose.
>
> But the dangerous thing is to let someone use the trademark in an
> improper way and then do nothing. That is how one can lose a
> trademark.
>
I agree with you, and advice strongly against doing that, now that we are
aware of it.
Several trademark cases have been lost in EU, because the companies using
the trademark had proof that the trademark holder had knowledge about the
usage over longer time. The court simply judged, that since the trademark
holder "did not take action" the companies using the trademark had earned
the right to use it.
We also have to carefull with "limited purpose", because if it is accepted
on one platform, it will be hard to deny it on other platforms, and we
would problaly loose a legal battle.
but thats just my 2ct
>
> -Rob
>
> > rgds
> > Jan I
> >
> >>
> >> > And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
> >> > why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
> >> >
> >> > Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
> >> > soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
> >> > applications.
> >> >
> >> > The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
> >> > should we change them?
> >> >
> >> > It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
> >> > what belongs to OpenOffice.
> >> >
> >> > Juergen
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:26 AM, janI <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 7 February 2013 13:20, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> >> Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
>> >>> anything but OpenOffice:
>> >>> sudo yum install openoffice.org
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and
>> I
>> >> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
>> >> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a
>> >> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready.
>> >>
>> >
>> > We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
>> > hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in
>> > the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
>> > because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
>> > fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and
>> > will provide future versions.
>> >
>>
>> It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by
>> this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get
>> something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't
>> offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles
>> with Pepsi.
>>
> If it is so classic, then for sure the ASF laywers could inform Fedora
> about the problem, and ask them to correct it, independently of whether or
> not AOO is distribtuted. I assume that since they are the distributors they
> need to make sure that their contributors uses valid trademarks.
>
> This might be a problem on other distros as well.
>
> Or is life not as simple as I think ?
>
I wouldn't start with the lawyers. But we could start by expressing concern.
Another option is to give them written permission to use the trademark
for that limited purpose.
But the dangerous thing is to let someone use the trademark in an
improper way and then do nothing. That is how one can lose a
trademark.
-Rob
> rgds
> Jan I
>
>>
>> > And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
>> > why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
>> >
>> > Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
>> > soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
>> > applications.
>> >
>> > The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
>> > should we change them?
>> >
>> > It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
>> > what belongs to OpenOffice.
>> >
>> > Juergen
>> >
>> >
>>
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 7 February 2013 13:20, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> >> Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
> >>> anything but OpenOffice:
> >>> sudo yum install openoffice.org
> >>
> >> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and
> I
> >> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
> >> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a
> >> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready.
> >>
> >
> > We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
> > hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in
> > the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
> > because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
> > fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and
> > will provide future versions.
> >
>
> It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by
> this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get
> something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't
> offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles
> with Pepsi.
>
If it is so classic, then for sure the ASF laywers could inform Fedora
about the problem, and ask them to correct it, independently of whether or
not AOO is distribtuted. I assume that since they are the distributors they
need to make sure that their contributors uses valid trademarks.
This might be a problem on other distros as well.
Or is life not as simple as I think ?
rgds
Jan I
>
> > And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
> > why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
> >
> > Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
> > soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
> > applications.
> >
> > The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
> > should we change them?
> >
> > It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
> > what belongs to OpenOffice.
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
>
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Pavel Janík wrote:
>
>> Is it LO who is infringing on our trademark or is it Fedora who is
>> misusing our trademark for other project? Shouldn't we notify Fedora
>> people politely about this situation and let them (and help them!)
>> solve the issue first?
>>
>
> This part of the thread is derailing a bit (nothing against Pavel, just
> picking one message). It started with Rob saying that IF "sudo yum install
> openoffice.org" installed something else than OpenOffice THEN he would
> have had trademark concerns. I answered that this is NOT the case in Fedora
> (others reported that other distributions do otherwise, but this is
> irrelevant to this thread, even though it's worth addressing in a separate
> discussion).
>
> I attended the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee chat yesterday. We
> can get back to them easily if we don't agree on aliases with the
> LibreOffice packagers. But for the time being the main issue is to be able
> to package OpenOffice.
>
> I already noted on the Fedora lists that, while the Committee doesn't want
> to reassign the "oowriter" alias since it must point to a default
> application (so to LibreOffice), the "openoffice.org" alias (which is
> identical, capitalization aside, to the "OpenOffice.org" trademark) was not
> discussed yesterday. But I hope we can get it sorted out together with the
> LibreOffice packagers for Fedora, and if it doesn't happen I'll raise the "
> openoffice.org" issue with the Committee.
>
> Again, packaging is the real issue now. Let's make OpenOffice for Fedora
> exist before we come to these issues. I'll continue the discussion in the
> other branch of this thread.
>
This sounds good! Looking forward to it! I don't use Fedora (currently) but
would surely like to see AOO included in their standard repository.
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"A great deal of talent is lost to the world
for want of a little courage."
-- Sydney Smith
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Pavel Janík wrote:
> Is it LO who is infringing on our trademark or is it Fedora who is
> misusing our trademark for other project? Shouldn't we notify Fedora
> people politely about this situation and let them (and help them!)
> solve the issue first?
This part of the thread is derailing a bit (nothing against Pavel, just
picking one message). It started with Rob saying that IF "sudo yum
install openoffice.org" installed something else than OpenOffice THEN he
would have had trademark concerns. I answered that this is NOT the case
in Fedora (others reported that other distributions do otherwise, but
this is irrelevant to this thread, even though it's worth addressing in
a separate discussion).
I attended the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee chat yesterday. We
can get back to them easily if we don't agree on aliases with the
LibreOffice packagers. But for the time being the main issue is to be
able to package OpenOffice.
I already noted on the Fedora lists that, while the Committee doesn't
want to reassign the "oowriter" alias since it must point to a default
application (so to LibreOffice), the "openoffice.org" alias (which is
identical, capitalization aside, to the "OpenOffice.org" trademark) was
not discussed yesterday. But I hope we can get it sorted out together
with the LibreOffice packagers for Fedora, and if it doesn't happen I'll
raise the "openoffice.org" issue with the Committee.
Again, packaging is the real issue now. Let's make OpenOffice for Fedora
exist before we come to these issues. I'll continue the discussion in
the other branch of this thread.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello,
> From: Pavel Janík [mailto:Pavel@Janik.cz]
> Is it LO who is infringing on our trademark or is it Fedora
> who is misusing our trademark for other project?
I'm not sure how to understand this question.
Please understand that I am not a developer and I do not understand the technical
details, I do not know exactly who is to blame.
> Shouldn't we
> notify Fedora people politely about this situation
yes, absolutely. there you are absolutely right.
> and let them (and help them!) solve the issue first?
Yes.
(again my position:
I have *no* criticism of Feodora, I have *no general* criticism of LO but I know
_some_ people (from TDF/LO) do not feel uncomfortable when they see the user to
mistakenly believe that LO would be the successor of OOo.)
Greetings,
Jörg
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello Michael,
> Bitte schön:
>
> Meines Erachtens nach ist es nicht der beste Weg, Apache OpenOffice
> wieder in die GNU/Linux-Distributionen hineinzubekommen (sie wieder zu
> einem Teil der GNU/Linux-Distributionen zu machen), diesen Vorwürfe zu
> machen.
Ich mache den Linux-Distributoren (oder Distributionen) keinerlei Vorwürfe, _wirklich nicht_. Ich werde nur das Gefühl nicht los, das Einige bei TDF/LO (*nicht* bei den Linux-Distributionen) die derzeitige Situation ganz 'komfortabel' für LO finden.
There are problems and we have to speak about it, but that has nothing to do with allegations. I myself have made _no_ allegations against the Linux distributors.
I think it is also not for _the core_ of things about formal legal naming rights to speak.
Only one problem and that is, the user will be confused when LO known internally as OpenOffice. Or how else do I rename the situation?
The use of Open Office, as internal name is not necessarily the problem, however, is unclear to me what you mean what do AOO?
It surely can not be the solution that is called AOO in Linux distributions 'no-name office' just because LO already taken the name OpenOffice.
You can not describe it as a reproach, that AOO want to be called by his name.
Greetings,
Jörg
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 08.02.2013 11:34, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> Hello Michael,
>
>> IMO it's not the best way trying to make Apache OpenOffice part of
>> GNU/Linuy distributions again to blame them.
>
> Please can I have this sentence in german?
> I've been thinking now 5 minutes, but I'm not sure what you mean _exactly_.
>
Bitte schön:
Meines Erachtens nach ist es nicht der beste Weg, Apache OpenOffice
wieder in die GNU/Linux-Distributionen hineinzubekommen (sie wieder zu
einem Teil der GNU/Linux-Distributionen zu machen), diesen Vorwürfe zu
machen.
(Wobei "blame" etwas stärker gemeint sein kann, etwa im Sinne
"beschuldigen", "anschuldigen".)
Regards
Michael
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello Michael,
> IMO it's not the best way trying to make Apache OpenOffice part of
> GNU/Linuy distributions again to blame them.
Please can I have this sentence in german?
I've been thinking now 5 minutes, but I'm not sure what you mean _exactly_.
Greetings,
Jörg
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 08.02.2013 10:57, schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
> Hello,
>
>>> It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux
>> distributions using such
>>> transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
>>> their system.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
>
> Mmh ...
>
> I read that, but what is your opinion? Did you mean that the current situation is OK or this needs to be improved?
>
> I think Rob's statement was correct, or in other words:
>
> Maybe Pepsi is good, Maybe Coke is good, Maybe both are good
>
> but:
>
> Pepsi in a Coke bottle is not good and Coke in a Pepsi bottle is also not good.
>
>
> note:
> I'm _not_ talking about the _technical part_, because of it I do not know enough. But I'm talking about the public impact of terms.
>
IMO it's not the best way trying to make Apache OpenOffice part of
GNU/Linuy distributions again to blame them.
Yes, I'm also talking about the public impact.
So let's concentrate to the thinks, which are now important, as Andrea
has proposed.
Regards
Michael
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
Hello,
> > It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux
> distributions using such
> > transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
> > their system.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
Mmh ...
I read that, but what is your opinion? Did you mean that the current situation is OK or this needs to be improved?
I think Rob's statement was correct, or in other words:
Maybe Pepsi is good, Maybe Coke is good, Maybe both are good
but:
Pepsi in a Coke bottle is not good and Coke in a Pepsi bottle is also not good.
note:
I'm _not_ talking about the _technical part_, because of it I do not know enough. But I'm talking about the public impact of terms.
Greetings,
Jörg
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:46 AM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 11:55, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:48 AM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8 February 2013 08:45, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
>
>>>> It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux distributions using such
>>>> transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
>>>> their system.
>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
>
>> That's not nominative use. Nominative use would be to use the
>> trademark in talking about the trademarked product. Using the
>> trademark to describe some other product is not nominative use. This
>> argument is even stronger when we have, as we do, documented cases of
>> users being confused, thinking they are getting OpenOffice, but
>> instead getting LibreOffice.
>
>
> A transitional package is something a distribution uses for upgrades
> of the whole distribution. Transitional packages are not things
> intended for installation by the end user. They are used when a
> package has changed names, or when one package has been removed and
> replaced with another.
>
No one is arguing the facts of what our trademark is being used for.
Obviously it has been used to replace OpenOffice.org with LibreOffice.
These facts are not in dispute. The question is whether this is a
legitimate use of the trademark, whether permission was granted, and
whether this is confusing to consumers. Whether the consumer is an
"end user" or a "power user" or an "admin" is irrelevant. We have
documented reports of confusion caused by this.
Regards,
-Rob
> In the latter case, the old software is referred to by its name, as
> the thing intended to be removed; that's a functional requirement.
>
> In a thread about trying to get distributions to take on AOO, you're
> talking about sending legal claims to distributions to try to stop
> them using the standard mechanisms they used to leave openoffice.org.
> It is possible this may not give anything like the desired result. (I
> could be wrong, of course, and you could succeed hugely.)
>
>
> - d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 8 February 2013 11:55, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:48 AM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 February 2013 08:45, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
>>> It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux distributions using such
>>> transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
>>> their system.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
> That's not nominative use. Nominative use would be to use the
> trademark in talking about the trademarked product. Using the
> trademark to describe some other product is not nominative use. This
> argument is even stronger when we have, as we do, documented cases of
> users being confused, thinking they are getting OpenOffice, but
> instead getting LibreOffice.
A transitional package is something a distribution uses for upgrades
of the whole distribution. Transitional packages are not things
intended for installation by the end user. They are used when a
package has changed names, or when one package has been removed and
replaced with another.
In the latter case, the old software is referred to by its name, as
the thing intended to be removed; that's a functional requirement.
In a thread about trying to get distributions to take on AOO, you're
talking about sending legal claims to distributions to try to stop
them using the standard mechanisms they used to leave openoffice.org.
It is possible this may not give anything like the desired result. (I
could be wrong, of course, and you could succeed hugely.)
- d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:48 AM, David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 February 2013 08:45, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
>
>> It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux distributions using such
>> transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
>> their system.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
>
That's not nominative use. Nominative use would be to use the
trademark in talking about the trademarked product. Using the
trademark to describe some other product is not nominative use. This
argument is even stronger when we have, as we do, documented cases of
users being confused, thinking they are getting OpenOffice, but
instead getting LibreOffice.
-Rob
>
> - d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 8 February 2013 08:45, RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
> It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux distributions using such
> transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
> their system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use
- d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 07.02.2013 22:10, schrieb Pavel Janík:
>> In my opinion the problem is not only the problem with the trade mark (or the simple program-name) but also a public relations problem.
>> I do not know the team of Feodora, but I know many people of LO / TDF and, let me be clear, _some_ (_not_ all) consider it well to cultivate a public representation that users subliminally says that LO's successor OOo is . (not as an official statement, but subliminally)
>
> Is it LO who is infringing on our trademark or is it Fedora who is misusing our trademark for other project? Shouldn't we notify Fedora people politely about this situation and let them (and help them!) solve the issue first?
It's not only Fedora, but also other GNU/Linux distributions using such
transitional packages. It's a common way supporting users to update
their system.
Regards
Michael
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Pavel Janík <Pa...@Janik.cz>.
> In my opinion the problem is not only the problem with the trade mark (or the simple program-name) but also a public relations problem.
> I do not know the team of Feodora, but I know many people of LO / TDF and, let me be clear, _some_ (_not_ all) consider it well to cultivate a public representation that users subliminally says that LO's successor OOo is . (not as an official statement, but subliminally)
Is it LO who is infringing on our trademark or is it Fedora who is misusing our trademark for other project? Shouldn't we notify Fedora people politely about this situation and let them (and help them!) solve the issue first?
--
Pavel Janík
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by
> this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get
> something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't
> offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles
> with Pepsi.
+1
Yes, this is a true statement.
In my opinion the problem is not only the problem with the trade mark (or the simple program-name) but also a public relations problem.
I do not know the team of Feodora, but I know many people of LO / TDF and, let me be clear, _some_ (_not_ all) consider it well to cultivate a public representation that users subliminally says that LO's successor OOo is . (not as an official statement, but subliminally)
I think these things are a real problem for AOO (In the public perception) and we must endeavor that something is changing.
Do not get me miss, it's not a matter of dispute, but a question of correct handling each other.
Greetings
Jörg
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
>>> anything but OpenOffice:
>>> sudo yum install openoffice.org
>>
>> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and I
>> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
>> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a
>> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready.
>>
>
> We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
> hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in
> the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
> because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
> fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and
> will provide future versions.
>
It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by
this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get
something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't
offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles
with Pepsi.
> And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
> why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
>
> Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
> soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
> applications.
>
> The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
> should we change them?
>
> It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
> what belongs to OpenOffice.
>
> Juergen
>
>
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
>> anything but OpenOffice:
>> sudo yum install openoffice.org
>
> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and I
> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a
> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready.
>
We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were
hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in
the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it
because we had no updated version in place with the latest security
fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and
will provide future versions.
And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see
why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice.
Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the
soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client
applications.
The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why
should we change them?
It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up
what belongs to OpenOffice.
Juergen
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Rob Weir wrote:
> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
> anything but OpenOffice:
> sudo yum install openoffice.org
It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and I
hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks.
Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a
convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 02/06/2013 09:13 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>
>>> On 31/01/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It got more coverage than needed, probably. It is just a proposal at
>>>> this stage, like dozens of other proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>> It is starting to become something a little bit more official now.
>>> Minutes ago, the "FESCo meeting" (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)
>>> approved the feature for Fedora 19 unanimously, 9-0.
>>
>>
>> Great news.
>>
>>
>>> They will likely publish some minutes, but I copy-paste from the chat.
>>> ---
>>> Feature is accepted under the condition that the conflicts must be
>>> worked out. OpenOffice and LibreOffice packagers get to work them out.
>>> There is no FESCo mandate that LibreOffice must change to accommodate
>>> OpenOffice at this time. Alternatives is not the way to resolve the
>>> conflicts but environment-modules may be looked at as a similar means to
>>> achieve that.
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Explanations:
>>>
>>> - Conflicts are over the "soffice" and "unopkg" aliases, and possibly
>>> others, which would be needed by both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Here I
>>> hope that the LibreOffice packagers can agree on some solutions (note:
>>> it's really about the packages, since the upstream LibreOffice does not
>>> conflict). Stephan Bergmann explained that there is still some usage of
>>> the hard-coded "soffice" by external applications and in the SDK. So
>>> this really needs to be clarified to see whether OpenOffice will break
>>> if it doesn't own the "soffice" alias.
>>>
>>> - For historical reasons, the "ooffice", "oowriter"... aliases are
>>> assigned to LibreOffice. Although we discussed it on the mailing lists,
>>> this won't change. So, unless we have the funny idea of squatting
>>> "lowriter", "localc"..., we are left with "aoowriter", "aoocalc" and so
>>> on.
>>
>>
>> I've the idea that both parties are changing to an own naming syntax:
>>
>> soffice -> aooffice *and* soffice -> loffice and so on with other names.
>>
>> Then both have work to do and nobody is in advantage to profit from old
>> stuff.
>>
>
> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
> anything but OpenOffice:
>
> sudo yum install openoffice.org
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
On at least Ubuntu 12.04 (a long term support version), doing this:
sudo apt-get install openoffice.org
will install LibreOffice.
Package description:
This is a transitional package, replacing the OpenOffice.org packaging
with the LibreOffice packaging.
It can be safely removed after an upgrade.
I've been wondering whether this is legal?
Regards
Damjan
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Marcus (OOo) <ma...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 02/06/2013 09:13 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>
>> On 31/01/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>> It got more coverage than needed, probably. It is just a proposal at
>>> this stage, like dozens of other proposals.
>>
>>
>> It is starting to become something a little bit more official now.
>> Minutes ago, the "FESCo meeting" (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)
>> approved the feature for Fedora 19 unanimously, 9-0.
>
>
> Great news.
>
>
>> They will likely publish some minutes, but I copy-paste from the chat.
>> ---
>> Feature is accepted under the condition that the conflicts must be
>> worked out. OpenOffice and LibreOffice packagers get to work them out.
>> There is no FESCo mandate that LibreOffice must change to accommodate
>> OpenOffice at this time. Alternatives is not the way to resolve the
>> conflicts but environment-modules may be looked at as a similar means to
>> achieve that.
>> ---
>>
>> Explanations:
>>
>> - Conflicts are over the "soffice" and "unopkg" aliases, and possibly
>> others, which would be needed by both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Here I
>> hope that the LibreOffice packagers can agree on some solutions (note:
>> it's really about the packages, since the upstream LibreOffice does not
>> conflict). Stephan Bergmann explained that there is still some usage of
>> the hard-coded "soffice" by external applications and in the SDK. So
>> this really needs to be clarified to see whether OpenOffice will break
>> if it doesn't own the "soffice" alias.
>>
>> - For historical reasons, the "ooffice", "oowriter"... aliases are
>> assigned to LibreOffice. Although we discussed it on the mailing lists,
>> this won't change. So, unless we have the funny idea of squatting
>> "lowriter", "localc"..., we are left with "aoowriter", "aoocalc" and so
>> on.
>
>
> I've the idea that both parties are changing to an own naming syntax:
>
> soffice -> aooffice *and* soffice -> loffice and so on with other names.
>
> Then both have work to do and nobody is in advantage to profit from old
> stuff.
>
But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed
anything but OpenOffice:
sudo yum install openoffice.org
Regards,
-Rob
> But maybe this just an idealistic way and a naive point of view ;-).
>
> My 2 ct.
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>
>> Fedora will branch for Alpha on 2 Apr 2013: we must have something
>> decently packaged by that time. At FOSDEM I met the Fedora people
>> together with Herbert and Andre, so we already have some knowledge of
>> the process.
>>
>> More details:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 02/06/2013 09:13 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> On 31/01/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> It got more coverage than needed, probably. It is just a proposal at
>> this stage, like dozens of other proposals.
>
> It is starting to become something a little bit more official now.
> Minutes ago, the "FESCo meeting" (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)
> approved the feature for Fedora 19 unanimously, 9-0.
Great news.
> They will likely publish some minutes, but I copy-paste from the chat.
> ---
> Feature is accepted under the condition that the conflicts must be
> worked out. OpenOffice and LibreOffice packagers get to work them out.
> There is no FESCo mandate that LibreOffice must change to accommodate
> OpenOffice at this time. Alternatives is not the way to resolve the
> conflicts but environment-modules may be looked at as a similar means to
> achieve that.
> ---
>
> Explanations:
>
> - Conflicts are over the "soffice" and "unopkg" aliases, and possibly
> others, which would be needed by both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Here I
> hope that the LibreOffice packagers can agree on some solutions (note:
> it's really about the packages, since the upstream LibreOffice does not
> conflict). Stephan Bergmann explained that there is still some usage of
> the hard-coded "soffice" by external applications and in the SDK. So
> this really needs to be clarified to see whether OpenOffice will break
> if it doesn't own the "soffice" alias.
>
> - For historical reasons, the "ooffice", "oowriter"... aliases are
> assigned to LibreOffice. Although we discussed it on the mailing lists,
> this won't change. So, unless we have the funny idea of squatting
> "lowriter", "localc"..., we are left with "aoowriter", "aoocalc" and so on.
I've the idea that both parties are changing to an own naming syntax:
soffice -> aooffice *and* soffice -> loffice and so on with other names.
Then both have work to do and nobody is in advantage to profit from old
stuff.
But maybe this just an idealistic way and a naive point of view ;-).
My 2 ct.
Marcus
> Fedora will branch for Alpha on 2 Apr 2013: we must have something
> decently packaged by that time. At FOSDEM I met the Fedora people
> together with Herbert and Andre, so we already have some knowledge of
> the process.
>
> More details:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:13:18PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> Fedora will branch for Alpha on 2 Apr 2013: we must have something
>> decently packaged by that time. At FOSDEM I met the Fedora people
>> together with Herbert and Andre, so we already have some knowledge
>> of the process. ...
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
> Does the "we must" mean the this project will be the package maintainer?
There might be a distinction between "the project" and "individuals from
the project", but yes, essentially this is work that is better done by
project volunteers: there are a number of issues with packaging that the
project must be aware of, and there's no better way than actually trying.
My main concern on the "can we work on the Fedora packaging within the
project?" issue was the license of the spec files that the RPMs must be
based on, but people on the Fedora list clarified today that the spec
file is under the MIT license, and thus "Category A" (i.e., something
that the project can incorporate and use; it is not going to be formally
released anyway):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files
I'll surely have a look at packaging, but everybody is of course welcome
to join. I already have some notes: shall I start a wiki page?
Note: I'm not saying that the packaging for ALL Linux distributions
should be done within the project; I'm saying that it's good to do this
first packaging within the project to be sure that we capture the many
issues that we are going to meet...
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:13:18PM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Fedora will branch for Alpha on 2 Apr 2013: we must have something
> decently packaged by that time. At FOSDEM I met the Fedora people
> together with Herbert and Andre, so we already have some knowledge
> of the process.
>
> More details:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
Does the "we must" mean the this project will be the package maintainer?
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
On 31/01/2013 Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> It got more coverage than needed, probably. It is just a proposal at
> this stage, like dozens of other proposals.
It is starting to become something a little bit more official now.
Minutes ago, the "FESCo meeting" (Fedora Engineering Steering Committee)
approved the feature for Fedora 19 unanimously, 9-0.
They will likely publish some minutes, but I copy-paste from the chat.
---
Feature is accepted under the condition that the conflicts must be
worked out. OpenOffice and LibreOffice packagers get to work them out.
There is no FESCo mandate that LibreOffice must change to accommodate
OpenOffice at this time. Alternatives is not the way to resolve the
conflicts but environment-modules may be looked at as a similar means to
achieve that.
---
Explanations:
- Conflicts are over the "soffice" and "unopkg" aliases, and possibly
others, which would be needed by both OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Here I
hope that the LibreOffice packagers can agree on some solutions (note:
it's really about the packages, since the upstream LibreOffice does not
conflict). Stephan Bergmann explained that there is still some usage of
the hard-coded "soffice" by external applications and in the SDK. So
this really needs to be clarified to see whether OpenOffice will break
if it doesn't own the "soffice" alias.
- For historical reasons, the "ooffice", "oowriter"... aliases are
assigned to LibreOffice. Although we discussed it on the mailing lists,
this won't change. So, unless we have the funny idea of squatting
"lowriter", "localc"..., we are left with "aoowriter", "aoocalc" and so on.
Fedora will branch for Alpha on 2 Apr 2013: we must have something
decently packaged by that time. At FOSDEM I met the Fedora people
together with Herbert and Andre, so we already have some knowledge of
the process.
More details:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.
TJ Frazier wrote:
> On 1/30/2013 16:54, RGB ES wrote:
>> Good! The proposal was noticed by Phoronix too :)
>> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4ODI
It got more coverage than needed, probably. It is just a proposal at
this stage, like dozens of other proposals.
> Note that the article says that AOO 4.0 is scheduled for "April, 2012".
> Oops.
Thanks, this is due to a typo I did in the wiki page, now fixed by
Jaroslav Reznik, the so-called "Feature Wrangler", who manages the
proposal lifecycle. But it probably propagated via sloppy copy-paste to
articles before Jaroslav fixed it.
Note that Jaroslav opened a dedicated thread on the Fedora devel list
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/thread.html
(search "OpenOffice") and that I already incorporated into
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
some suggestions that came from there: using expressions more neutral
than "leading free and open-source office suite" (I replaced it with
"extremely popular", it was copied from our website and it is irrelevant
to the application, since OpenOffice is well-known enough) and a
historical remark by Caolan McNamara about the period when Fedora
packaged ooo-build instead of the standard OpenOffice.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by TJ Frazier <tj...@cfl.rr.com>.
On 1/30/2013 16:54, RGB ES wrote:
> 2013/1/30 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
>
>> Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
>> planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice>
>>
>> You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
>> distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number of
>> reasons.
>>
>> Let's wait and see; Fedora 19 is nicknamed "Schroedinger's cat" after all.
>> The Fedora 19 release schedule, as an exception to the common Fedora
>> conventions, will not be time-based but feature-based: features accepted by
>> the Fedora Board will be considered before drafting the schedule. Anyway,
>> optimally it would allow to package OpenOffice 4.0 (and there would be work
>> to do on the OpenOffice and the Fedora side to get OpenOffice properly
>> packaged).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andrea.
>>
>
>
> Good! The proposal was noticed by Phoronix too :)
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4ODI
>
> Regards
> Ricardo
>
Note that the article says that AOO 4.0 is scheduled for "April, 2012".
Oops. /tj/
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by RGB ES <rg...@gmail.com>.
2013/1/30 Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>
> Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
> planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
> https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice>
>
> You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
> distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number of
> reasons.
>
> Let's wait and see; Fedora 19 is nicknamed "Schroedinger's cat" after all.
> The Fedora 19 release schedule, as an exception to the common Fedora
> conventions, will not be time-based but feature-based: features accepted by
> the Fedora Board will be considered before drafting the schedule. Anyway,
> optimally it would allow to package OpenOffice 4.0 (and there would be work
> to do on the OpenOffice and the Fedora side to get OpenOffice properly
> packaged).
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Good! The proposal was noticed by Phoronix too :)
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI4ODI
Regards
Ricardo
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hello;
----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: David Gerard
...
>
>
> A question I was wondering (for the Wikipedia article): is there any
> Linux distribution that presently carries AOO in its repos?
>
> I understand it's in the FreeBSD ports tree
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/editors/openoffice-3-devel/
> - which would be the BSD equivalent.
>
I don't know about linux but for FreeBSD please use this link:
http://www.freshports.org/editors/openoffice-3/
the -devel version is only meant for ... developers :).
Pedro.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by David Gerard <dg...@gmail.com>.
On 30 January 2013 15:12, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org> wrote:
> You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
> distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number of
> reasons.
A question I was wondering (for the Wikipedia article): is there any
Linux distribution that presently carries AOO in its repos?
I understand it's in the FreeBSD ports tree
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/editors/openoffice-3-devel/
- which would be the BSD equivalent.
- d.
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by "Marcus (OOo)" <ma...@wtnet.de>.
Am 01/30/2013 04:12 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
> Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
> planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice
>
> You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
> distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number
> of reasons.
>
> Let's wait and see; Fedora 19 is nicknamed "Schroedinger's cat" after
> all. The Fedora 19 release schedule, as an exception to the common
> Fedora conventions, will not be time-based but feature-based: features
> accepted by the Fedora Board will be considered before drafting the
> schedule. Anyway, optimally it would allow to package OpenOffice 4.0
> (and there would be work to do on the OpenOffice and the Fedora side to
> get OpenOffice properly packaged).
Andrea, thanks for keeping the eyes open for more integration. Let's
cross our fingers, maybe it helps to be successful.
Marcus
Re: Apache OpenOffice in Fedora 19?
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>wrote:
> Right on the deadline to propose new features for Fedora 19 (it wasn't
> planned) I submitted Apache OpenOffice as a proposed new feature:
> https://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApacheOpenOffice>
>
> You can see this as a first step in getting back into the major Linux
> distributions. Timing aside, Fedora is a very good choice for a number of
> reasons.
>
> Let's wait and see; Fedora 19 is nicknamed "Schroedinger's cat" after all.
> The Fedora 19 release schedule, as an exception to the common Fedora
> conventions, will not be time-based but feature-based: features accepted by
> the Fedora Board will be considered before drafting the schedule. Anyway,
> optimally it would allow to package OpenOffice 4.0 (and there would be work
> to do on the OpenOffice and the Fedora side to get OpenOffice properly
> packaged).
>
> Regards,
> Andrea.
>
Thanks for moving this forward, Andrea. I know we've had some
interest/questions from some of the Fedora folks. Keeping my fingers
crossed on this one!
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"A great deal of talent is lost to the world
for want of a little courage."
-- Sydney Smith