You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2011/11/15 18:46:12 UTC
Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
I have been mulling this over for a long time...
Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
OOo ecosystem.
I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
that sets the record straight.
And I volunteer to drive this task...
Comments?
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> Who are your targets, Jim?
>>
>> I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
>> the entire Open Office ecosystem.
>>
>
> I think we must show ooo power by doing something cool - like a
> release. This will silent all fud in a second. Not sure if it will
> help if just tell people about us. After all, this has already been
> done.
That is true... A release is very cool, but for those who are
unaware what effort it takes to do so (esp when considering the
state OOo was on), or are using the lack of release as a FUD
point, I still think we need something pre-release.
>
> I like Robs idea with "10 things which we are working on". But this is
> not the same as an open letter.
We can do both ;)
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> Who are your targets, Jim?
>>
>> I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
>> the entire Open Office ecosystem.
>>
>
> I think we must show ooo power by doing something cool - like a
> release. This will silent all fud in a second. Not sure if it will
> help if just tell people about us. After all, this has already been
> done.
>
> I like Robs idea with "10 things which we are working on". But this is
> not the same as an open letter.
>
I was thinking something less about project status, and more about
what our worldview/Weltanshauung.
For example, if the following could be expanded to 10 or 12 points
that we agreed are at the core of why we are here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/What+we+believe
-Rob
> Anyway, if others are wanting this, I can help with the translation of
> this letter into german, as there are many people in the eco system
> from germany
>
> Cheers
>
>
> --
> http://www.grobmeier.de
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Who are your targets, Jim?
>
> I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
> the entire Open Office ecosystem.
>
I think we must show ooo power by doing something cool - like a
release. This will silent all fud in a second. Not sure if it will
help if just tell people about us. After all, this has already been
done.
I like Robs idea with "10 things which we are working on". But this is
not the same as an open letter.
Anyway, if others are wanting this, I can help with the translation of
this letter into german, as there are many people in the eco system
from germany
Cheers
--
http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 15 November 2011 19:58, Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 14:41, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> > great but we need to get more people from NLCs and forums and others
> involved.
>
> Then let's do what we did before, and start with the flakes left over
> from the avalanche and once again build a true and open community.
>
> Keep in mind: there is a huge audience for OOo (or Libre) and they
> will be interested in current code—code that is advancing and that is
> developing for contemporary (read: mobile, cloud) uses, among other
> things.
>
I would definitely like to see a shift to Cloud and mobile. Not a trivial
task unfortunately but that message would certainly capture the imagination
if it was a possibility.
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 15 November 2011 14:41, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> great but we need to get more people from NLCs and forums and others involved.
Then let's do what we did before, and start with the flakes left over
from the avalanche and once again build a true and open community.
Keep in mind: there is a huge audience for OOo (or Libre) and they
will be interested in current code—code that is advancing and that is
developing for contemporary (read: mobile, cloud) uses, among other
things.
louis
>
> On 11/15/11, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> Who are your targets, Jim?
>>
>> I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
>> the entire Open Office ecosystem.
>>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> OpenOffice.org Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
great but we need to get more people from NLCs and forums and others involved.
On 11/15/11, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> Who are your targets, Jim?
>
> I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
> the entire Open Office ecosystem.
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
OpenOffice.org Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> Who are your targets, Jim?
I believe I mentioned them in the original post... In summary:
the entire Open Office ecosystem.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 15 Nov 2011, at 09:46, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>
> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
> OOo ecosystem.
>
> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
> that sets the record straight.
>
> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>
> Comments?
Who are your targets, Jim? Last time ASF issued a statement it was so PC and vague that it appeared to attack LibreOffice instead of addressing its intended issue.
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jim,
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
> that sets the record straight.
>
> And I volunteer to drive this task...
When you draft Open Letter to the entire OpenOffice.org ecosystem
including OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 users, please include simple and clear
messages for the world users.
Like
- OpenOffice.org project is now Apache OpenOffice.org (incubating).
- Apache OpenOffice project will develop and release Apache OpenOffice.
- The ASF will keep holding OpenOffice.org trademark.
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
is always a good idea to have a constant message with the public. also
from a recruiting point of view. i would suggest to highlight the
trully openness of the project and also the engineering tasks that we
are aiming.
i think the community has also grown and is time to start communicate
its character.
On 11/15/11, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>
> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
> OOo ecosystem.
>
> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
> that sets the record straight.
>
> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>
> Comments?
>
--
Alexandro Colorado
OpenOffice.org Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:34 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 18:03, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>>
>>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>>> OOo ecosystem.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, an AOOo release would be the best possible vehicle for
>> expressing a proactive message. But until we have that, I could
>> certainly see the value of having a statement on what we are, what we
>> believe, what we stand for, etc. At graduation time we'd draft a
>> charter for the new TLP. But today we don't have anything.
>>
>>> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
>>> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
>>> that sets the record straight.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... maybe we have different things in mind. I was thinking more of
>> a manifesto type statement. "We are the Apache OpenOffice podling.
>> These are the things we believe are important..." and then list 10
>> things and end with, "Here's how you can help...".
>>
>> That would be proactive, not reactionary.
>
> This thread got de-railed by the TeamOO revalation that they plan an
> OOo 3.3.1 release. However, it is still very important, in fact even
> more important.
>
> Any chance of resurrecting this idea and delivering on it as a matter
> of some urgency?
>
I did start a wiki page on this back at the time, with some quaint ideas:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/What+we+believe
If anyone else wants to take a shot, they are welcome.
-Rob
> Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 15 November 2011 18:03, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>
>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>> OOo ecosystem.
>>
>
> Of course, an AOOo release would be the best possible vehicle for
> expressing a proactive message. But until we have that, I could
> certainly see the value of having a statement on what we are, what we
> believe, what we stand for, etc. At graduation time we'd draft a
> charter for the new TLP. But today we don't have anything.
>
>> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
>> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
>> that sets the record straight.
>>
>
> Hmm... maybe we have different things in mind. I was thinking more of
> a manifesto type statement. "We are the Apache OpenOffice podling.
> These are the things we believe are important..." and then list 10
> things and end with, "Here's how you can help...".
>
> That would be proactive, not reactionary.
This thread got de-railed by the TeamOO revalation that they plan an
OOo 3.3.1 release. However, it is still very important, in fact even
more important.
Any chance of resurrecting this idea and delivering on it as a matter
of some urgency?
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 16 November 2011 12:42, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > On 15 November 2011 18:31, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> >> Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
> >> such as Open Office and ODF;
> >
> > Hey, we can even quote Stallman there.
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm +1 on an open letter or not. I certainly like Rob's
> > manifesto/top ten type idea. I'm not sure we need something that might
> > be seen as aggressive, if the TDF as a whole really reacted the way we
> > were told then such a letter may be seen as an attack on the TDF
> > itself, rather than an attempt to address FUD from a few.
>
> I like the "manifesto/top ten type" idea, but I also feel the
> need for an Open Letter as well. For example, I have heard
> from reliable sources that some companies have been "convinced"
> that they should not donate any patches to AOOo and instead should
> donate them to another entity. An open letter could describe why
> this is harmful to the entire OOo ecosystem.
>
I think a key message related to that is that ASF wants the widest possible
take up of products based on the Apache OpenOffice code base so that the
ODF standard is strengthened across the whole ecosystem.
I should think that simple message is enough to counter any others without
upsetting anyone.
Let's see how far the manifesto/top ten type idea goes and maybe
> I'll be appeased ;)
>
>
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 18:31, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
>> such as Open Office and ODF;
>
> Hey, we can even quote Stallman there.
>
> I'm not sure I'm +1 on an open letter or not. I certainly like Rob's
> manifesto/top ten type idea. I'm not sure we need something that might
> be seen as aggressive, if the TDF as a whole really reacted the way we
> were told then such a letter may be seen as an attack on the TDF
> itself, rather than an attempt to address FUD from a few.
>
I like the "manifesto/top ten type" idea, but I also feel the
need for an Open Letter as well. For example, I have heard
from reliable sources that some companies have been "convinced"
that they should not donate any patches to AOOo and instead should
donate them to another entity. An open letter could describe why
this is harmful to the entire OOo ecosystem.
Let's see how far the manifesto/top ten type idea goes and maybe
I'll be appeased ;)
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 15 November 2011 21:03, Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2011 18:31, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> > Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
>> > such as Open Office and ODF;
>>
>> Hey, we can even quote Stallman there.
>>
>> I'm not sure I'm +1 on an open letter or not. I certainly like Rob's
>> manifesto/top ten type idea. I'm not sure we need something that might
>> be seen as aggressive, if the TDF as a whole really reacted the way we
>> were told then such a letter may be seen as an attack on the TDF
>> itself, rather than an attempt to address FUD from a few.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>
> +1 to what Ross is saying (and I think Simon was trying to get at the same
> issue). A list of things we're doing (from the project, *not* the
> figurehead of ASF) would probably be less contentious.
I should have also said, if the FUD continues then an Open Letter from
the foundation would certainly be appropriate.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Danese Cooper <da...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 18:31, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
> > such as Open Office and ODF;
>
> Hey, we can even quote Stallman there.
>
> I'm not sure I'm +1 on an open letter or not. I certainly like Rob's
> manifesto/top ten type idea. I'm not sure we need something that might
> be seen as aggressive, if the TDF as a whole really reacted the way we
> were told then such a letter may be seen as an attack on the TDF
> itself, rather than an attempt to address FUD from a few.
>
> Ross
>
+1 to what Ross is saying (and I think Simon was trying to get at the same
issue). A list of things we're doing (from the project, *not* the
figurehead of ASF) would probably be less contentious.
Danese
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 15 November 2011 18:31, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
> such as Open Office and ODF;
Hey, we can even quote Stallman there.
I'm not sure I'm +1 on an open letter or not. I certainly like Rob's
manifesto/top ten type idea. I'm not sure we need something that might
be seen as aggressive, if the TDF as a whole really reacted the way we
were told then such a letter may be seen as an attack on the TDF
itself, rather than an attempt to address FUD from a few.
Ross
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 15 November 2011 13:31, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> Partly, I can see a number of FUDisms to address. Like there are
> only 2 "main players" within the Open Office ecosystem (Apache and
> TDF) and that people need to "choose" between one or the other;
> that the various versions compete against each other instead of
> complimenting each other; Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
> such as Open Office and ODF; how there is much more potential for
> Open Office than as "just" a end-user MS Office replacement; etc…
There are more. I'd like to see us then establish a deadline for this,
as well as, if it is within the protocols of Apache, the group
drafting it (?).
FWIW, OOo had a list, pr@, that drafted such sorts of things, in
addition to the release announcements. It was "private" in that you
had to be a member of the project to see the work, but it was by no
means "secret," as just about anybody could join the project and thus
see the work being done. (We had the normal issues regarding secrecy,
privacy, Foss, and marketing.)
-louis
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Dec 19, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 19 Dec 2011, at 16:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
>>> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
>>> would show as a new block.
>>
>> why do you think that it is a different code base? It is exactly the code base granted by Oracle to the ASF. Ok we cleaned up the code base, removed external libs, replace some and developed some new things. I would say normal work in the broadest sense ... Otherwise the code base would change for every release and we have blocks for each of them.
>
> The elimination of all non-Apache-licensed code from the former codebase is hardly "normal work", and the replacement of the functions it performed with other code from other sources won't be either.
>
> All this pretence that AOO somehow a "business as usual" continuation of the former project is frankly unhelpful. Just face up to the fact this is a new project in a new venue with new rules, a new license, a new brand, and strong historic links to the former codebase. As Graham keeps hinting, treating this as a strength seems to be both the right marketing policy and a great opportunity to move beyond past hurts.
I think that we need to agree to disagree. Let's look at some AOO(i) accomplishments.
- Moved Bugzilla to Apache Infrastructure.
- Moved MediaWiki to Apache Infra.
- Moved User Forums to Apache Infra.
- Transferred Domain Registration of openoffice.org to the ASF.
- Changed the headers to AL2.0
- Replaced many incompatible components.
- About to move www.openoffice.org to Apache Infra. The new site is built and final adjustments are being made.
- All of the NLP projects are included - they are there for volunteers.
- Ready to migrate the Mailing Lists.
- Extensions and Templates plans are being debated by Infrastructure.
We are working to move as much of OpenOffice.org as possible, and it is a substantial portion of the assets.
It looks like there is some confusion about the fact that the project is new, but the codebase etc. is as much as possible a continuation.
I don't want to debate this. It is what we at the Apache OpenOffice (incubating) project are doing. People are welcome to join.
Marketing discussions on ooo-marketing. As you imply there is a lot to do and energy is best spent doing!
Donations to the ASF are not directed, but if you look at the list above you'll see that Apache Infrastructure is doing a lot for the project and donations do support that effort.
Best Regards,
Dave
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 19 déc. 11 à 20:40, Simon Phipps a écrit :
>
> As Graham keeps hinting, treating this as a strength seems to be
> both the right marketing policy and a great opportunity to move
> beyond past hurts.
>
Your patches are welcome :-)
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
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: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 19 Dec 2011, at 16:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
>> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
>> would show as a new block.
>
> why do you think that it is a different code base? It is exactly the code base granted by Oracle to the ASF. Ok we cleaned up the code base, removed external libs, replace some and developed some new things. I would say normal work in the broadest sense ... Otherwise the code base would change for every release and we have blocks for each of them.
The elimination of all non-Apache-licensed code from the former codebase is hardly "normal work", and the replacement of the functions it performed with other code from other sources won't be either.
All this pretence that AOO somehow a "business as usual" continuation of the former project is frankly unhelpful. Just face up to the fact this is a new project in a new venue with new rules, a new license, a new brand, and strong historic links to the former codebase. As Graham keeps hinting, treating this as a strength seems to be both the right marketing policy and a great opportunity to move beyond past hurts.
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@googlemail.com>.
On 12/17/11 4:44 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
> it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
> would show as a new block.
why do you think that it is a different code base? It is exactly the
code base granted by Oracle to the ASF. Ok we cleaned up the code base,
removed external libs, replace some and developed some new things. I
would say normal work in the broadest sense ... Otherwise the code base
would change for every release and we have blocks for each of them.
Juergen
Michael's has the advantage that it shows the
> relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including
> every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
>
> S.
> On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler"<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
>> the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
>> message I'm after.
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps"<si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir<ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>>>>
>>>> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
>>>> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
>>>> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>>>
>>> Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
>>> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>>>
>>> While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
>>> helping people understand the current state of the community and the
>> extent
>>> of its diversity.
>>>
>>> S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Dec 17, 2011 4:13 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
> It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then
> Michaels would indeed be a better document).
What do you want to show? Maybe one of us can help by coming up with a
suitable graphical representation that shows it without misrepresenting
other facts?
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 December 2011 15:44, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> Michael's has the advantage that it shows the
> relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including
> every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
It's not the relative adoption I want to show. If I did want that then
Michaels would indeed be a better document).
Ross
>
> S.
> On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
>> the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
>> message I'm after.
>>
>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
>> On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>> > >
>> > > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
>> > > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
>> > > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>> >
>> > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
>> > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>> >
>> > While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
>> > helping people understand the current state of the community and the
>> extent
>> > of its diversity.
>> >
>> > S.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Surely that's just a matter of fact, though? When AOO makes a new release,
it will be a different codebase under a different brand, so on both charts
would show as a new block. Michael's has the advantage that it shows the
relative adoption of the various lines, something that Rob's (by including
every possible variant regardless of relevance) tends to hide.
S.
On Dec 17, 2011 2:53 PM, "Ross Gardler" <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
> the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
> message I'm after.
>
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
> > >
> > > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> > > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> > > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
> >
> > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
> >
> > While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
> > helping people understand the current state of the community and the
> extent
> > of its diversity.
> >
> > S.
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Thanks Simon, unfortunately the representation here, indicating the date of
the last release as the end of the line (literally) is not really the
message I'm after.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Dec 17, 2011 2:40 PM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
> >
> > Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> > don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> > (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>
> Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>
> While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in
> helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent
> of its diversity.
>
> S.
>
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Dom 18/12/11, Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
...
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:38 PM,
> Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
> >
> >>
> >> Sure - if it is easier for us to include
> >> an existing feature, under an
> >> acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we
> bother
> >> re-writing it ?
> >> conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
> >>
> >
> > And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> > had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> > very well ;-).
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1208206
>
Of course that proves how consistent I am! I was
effectively saying that copying from others' work
(when permitted by the license) is fine. No pun intended.
> an English proverb about stone and glass house comes to
> mind...
>
I was not implying a double standard, if that's what you
mean.
In the case of my commit:
- the affected "code" is under a BSD license.
- I knew beforehand that it was about to be removed
from the tree (but may be brought back some day).
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Norbert Thiebaud <nt...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> --- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
>
>>
>> Sure - if it is easier for us to include
>> an existing feature, under an
>> acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother
>> re-writing it ?
>> conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
>>
>
> And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> very well ;-).
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1208206
an English proverb about stone and glass house comes to mind...
Norbert
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross,
It's interesting to browse wikipedia pages named
"http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org"
Change "xx" to your favorite language code, for example, "el", which
makes "http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org"
And you can not find "Apache" on the el page, can you?
Now try:
http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org
Can you find "Apache" on these pages?
That's why we should send an Open Letter with correct information and
update to the world.
Thanks,
khirano
--
khirano@apache.org
OpenOffice.org[TM](incubating)|The Free and Open Productivity Suite
Apache incubator
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 17 December 2011 22:50, eric b <er...@free.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 17 déc. 11 à 23:26, Ross Gardler a écrit :
>
>
>> Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or
>> necessary.
>> Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose,
>
>
>
> Well, it is not that bad.
No it is not, it does seem to upset some, but then it's impossible not
to upset someone.
>> neither is
>> Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is a
>> good one.
>
>
>
> If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version pretends
> Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org ) is a
> fork
Hmmm...
Thanks, I'll put some more thought into this.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
On 17/12/2011 eric b wrote:
> the french version pretends
> Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org ) is
> a fork
> We probably should take an eye on the Italian and the German versions.
The Italian one has a terse but accurate description.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
----- Mail original -----
>De: "eric b" <er...@free.fr>
>À: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Envoyé: Samedi 17 Décembre 2011 23:50:50
>Objet: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
>If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version
>pretends Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>OpenOffice.org ) is a fork
Eric,
If you aware about this facts, you could comment and contact the WP author.
I did it and ask modification of this sentence to:
"Oracle transfered the source code and trademarks to the Apache Foundation
that now provides continuity".
Sorry for the translation, I don't know if this words are right.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by eric b <er...@free.fr>.
Hi,
Le 17 déc. 11 à 23:26, Ross Gardler a écrit :
> Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive
> or necessary.
> Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose,
Well, it is not that bad.
> neither is
> Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article
> is a good one.
If I was you, I wouldn't be so categorical : the french version
pretends Apache OpenOffice.org ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
OpenOffice.org ) is a fork
We probably should take an eye on the Italian and the German versions.
--
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: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Lets not dive into another Us Vs Them argument, its not productive or necessary.
Clearly Robs graphic is not suitable for my purpose, neither is
Michaels. However, Simons suggestion of using the Wikipedia article is
a good one.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 19/12/11, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> ha scritto:
...
>
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 08:40 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
> > amusing that your signature says you are a
> pseudo-engineer,
>
> Ah ! fair cop :-) that's so people don't
> take me too seriously, and
> hopefully a good reminder to not take myself so; point
> taken.
>
> > I guess we are each other's nemesis?? ;-).
>
> ;-)
>
> > - The lcc preprocessor we replaced with ucpp.
>
> It'd be great to have some pointers to
> the code. git grep 'lcc' shows me nothing.
>
I don't use GIT.
Perhaps the Atlassian FishEye will be helpful there:
https://fisheye6.atlassian.com/browse/ooo
but I don't use that either ;). Perhaps just look
at the ucpp module on SVN web interface and dig the commit
revision from there.
> > - The use of (GPL-incompatible) LPPL in some stuff in
> > the dictionaries. This was known in
> OOo but is not
> > an issue in AOO anymore.
>
> Well; I'll have a look into it; I
> suspect there is some semantic detail / difference in
> how Apache views this vs. how Oracle did (they were
> shipping it of course, with the LPPL license mentioned
We have no view about it, for us GPL or LPPL are both too
restricted so it all went away. I would think neither
would be an issue for a third party shipping the
dictionaries.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 08:40 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
> amusing that your signature says you are a pseudo-engineer,
Ah ! fair cop :-) that's so people don't take me too seriously, and
hopefully a good reminder to not take myself so; point taken.
> I guess we are each other's nemesis?? ;-).
;-)
> - The lcc preprocessor we replaced with ucpp.
It'd be great to have some pointers to the code. git grep 'lcc' shows
me nothing.
> - The use of (GPL-incompatible) LPPL in some stuff in
> the dictionaries. This was known in OOo but is not
> an issue in AOO anymore.
Well; I'll have a look into it; I suspect there is some semantic
detail / difference in how Apache views this vs. how Oracle did (they
were shipping it of course, with the LPPL license mentioned and linked
in the license file).
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 19/12/11, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> ha scritto:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 06:32 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > > I'd prefer to see myself as part of the freedom
> loving,
> >> non-corporate dominated group of hackers having
> fun.
> >
> > And that's fine because you are not me. I am real
> > engineer (Mechanical) BTW ;).
>
> I find your jokes somewhat hard to parse; I wonder
> whether this quip, juxtaposed with you as 'navy' and
> me as 'pirate' is intended to read as
> a qualitative comparison of the relative depth of our
> experience, professionalism, or product quality. I
> would build my defense of that, not on my MEng (Cantab)
> but on my decade of mistakes in the world of
> Free Software ;-) [ and still learning ].
>
Please don't take anything personally. I just find it
amusing that your signature says you are a pseudo-engineer,
and on the other side of the coin I am proud to be an
engineer. In my case being an engineer has nothing to do
with software so I sort of get a different feeling where
the "pseudo-engineer" thing comes from.
I guess we are each other's nemesis?? ;-).
> > And you still have more to do: surprisingly AOO is at
> this time
> > the only GPL-compatible OpenOffice codebase. (OK, I
> haven't
> > looked if Neooffice removed the GPL-incompatible code
> but ...
> > who cares about them).
>
> Looks like a nasty nucleus of potential
> FUD. If you are aware of some
> licensing problem, please send a reasonably detailed
> notification to
> some official contact point; info@documentfoundation.org
> might be good for that.
>
Quite bluntly, the licensing issues TDF may have are not
something I care about but I have warned some LO developers
in private of the issues we have found. Concretely:
- The lcc preprocessor we replaced with ucpp.
- The use of (GPL-incompatible) LPPL in some stuff in
the dictionaries. This was known in OOo but is not
an issue in AOO anymore.
> > > That in no sense means we will be 'based on
> Apache
> > > OpenOffice Incubating' - we will not be.
> >
> > There is no way around that.
>
> So you appear to think :-) the work is
> not yet started; no doubt you'll
> enjoy the result.
>
I am glad that you found a solution that works for
you, the AL2 is indeed made to have the code useable
for everyone.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 06:32 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > I'd prefer to see myself as part of the freedom loving,
>> non-corporate dominated group of hackers having fun.
>
> And that's fine because you are not me. I am real engineer
> (Mechanical) BTW ;).
I find your jokes somewhat hard to parse; I wonder whether this quip,
juxtaposed with you as 'navy' and me as 'pirate' is intended to read as
a qualitative comparison of the relative depth of our experience,
professionalism, or product quality. I would build my defense of that,
not on my MEng (Cantab) but on my decade of mistakes in the world of
Free Software ;-) [ and still learning ].
> And you still have more to do: surprisingly AOO is at this time
> the only GPL-compatible OpenOffice codebase. (OK, I haven't
> looked if Neooffice removed the GPL-incompatible code but ...
> who cares about them).
Looks like a nasty nucleus of potential FUD. If you are aware of some
licensing problem, please send a reasonably detailed notification to
some official contact point; info@documentfoundation.org might be good
for that.
> > That in no sense means we will be 'based on Apache
> > OpenOffice Incubating' - we will not be.
>
> There is no way around that.
So you appear to think :-) the work is not yet started; no doubt you'll
enjoy the result.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Lun 19/12/11, Gianluca Turconi ha scritto:
> Data: Lunedì 19 dicembre 2011, 09:43
> Il 19/12/2011 15.32, Pedro Giffuni ha
> scritto:
> > If libreoffice takes the license headers it becomes
> an
> > Apache OpenOffice derivative, if it doesn't take them
> it's
> > still an OOo derivative and OpenOffice.org is an ASF
> > trademark anyways.
>
> Pedro, it's rather important *when* a derivative is made.
>
Look at it this way: OpenOffice.org is for all
purposes now Apache OpenOffice. By taking out the
OpenOffice.org headers and replacing them with Apache
headers they become an Apache OpenOffice derivative.
*When* is the moment they take the headers, so LibreOffice
is not yet an Apache OpenOffice derivative but is an OOo
derivative.
> Otherwise, even current IBM Symphony would be a AOO
> derivative and obviously it is not.
>
I understand it will be.
But then all this has only a nominal value that no one cares
about.
The big truth is that with SUN going broke and it's new
owner not interested in sharing that fate in the free
office suite market both Apache OO and LibreOffice have
a lot less than ideal manpower (I am talking about
number of developers, not quality).
No pun intended here, but none of the projects is making
major advances at this point and it's not like LO will be
replacing writer with GNU Emacs ever ;).
Of course time will tell, and I am very happy about the
changes being worked on here at Apache.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Gianluca Turconi <pu...@letturefantastiche.com>.
Il 19/12/2011 15.32, Pedro Giffuni ha scritto:
> If libreoffice takes the license headers it becomes an
> Apache OpenOffice derivative, if it doesn't take them it's
> still an OOo derivative and OpenOffice.org is an ASF
> trademark anyways.
Pedro, it's rather important *when* a derivative is made.
Otherwise, even current IBM Symphony would be a AOO derivative and
obviously it is not.
Regards,
Gianluca
--
Lettura gratuita o acquisto di libri e racconti di fantascienza,
fantasy, horror, noir, narrativa fantastica e tradizionale:
http://www.letturefantastiche.com/
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Michael,
--- Lun 19/12/11, Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com> ha scritto:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 16:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> > And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> > had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> > very well ;-).
>
> But wait, did I confuse you with the
> chap who suggested that Apple's
> non-contribution back to FreeBSD was simply wonderful ?
> :-)
>
I said exactly that :). What is so difficult to understand?
Take all the changes you want from OpenOffice (respecting
the license of course), and don't look back.
> > It's rather interesting that for AOO the
> OpenOffice.org
> > legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the
> > freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we
> > are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy.
>
> If you want to see yourself as the
> continuation of SUN/Oracle - I think
> that's a reasonably apt description :-) I'd prefer to see
> myself as part
> of the freedom loving, non-corporate dominated group of
> hackers having fun.
>
And that's fine because you are not me. I am real engineer
(Mechanical) BTW ;).
> > had a good quote for this "It's more fun to be a
> > pirate than to join the navy."
>
> Yep; I want us to be different from the
> horrors of the past. I don't want a single company
> choosing a 'meritocracy' for me,
And that's fine again. I don't have traumas from the past
(or openoffice.org email) and the stuff I do is not
sponsored by any company. In fact, I do only what I want,
can't be any freer.
>
> Yes - sure; we need a one-shot partial
> re-basing/conversion/re-licensing to get the code that we
> laboured on for many years under an acceptable, future-proof,
> copy-left license.
And you still have more to do: surprisingly AOO is at this time
the only GPL-compatible OpenOffice codebase. (OK, I haven't
looked if Neooffice removed the GPL-incompatible code but ...
who cares about them).
> That in no sense means we will be 'based on Apache
> OpenOffice Incubating' - we will not be.
>
There is no way around that. The new license headers are not
insignificant and are the main new AOO feature. It is not
a coincidence that Andrew Rist is the biggest committer in
the (admittedly short) AOO history.
If libreoffice takes the license headers it becomes an
Apache OpenOffice derivative, if it doesn't take them it's
still an OOo derivative and OpenOffice.org is an ASF
trademark anyways.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Pedro,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 16:38 -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
> had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
> very well ;-).
But wait, did I confuse you with the chap who suggested that Apple's
non-contribution back to FreeBSD was simply wonderful ? :-)
> It's rather interesting that for AOO the OpenOffice.org
> legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the
> freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we
> are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy.
If you want to see yourself as the continuation of SUN/Oracle - I think
that's a reasonably apt description :-) I'd prefer to see myself as part
of the freedom loving, non-corporate dominated group of hackers having
fun.
> LibreOffice instead seems to be more interested in
> showing independence from what would seem to have been
> the past "oppressive" Oracle/SUN regime. Again Steve Jobs
> had a good quote for this "It's more fun to be a pirate
> than to join the navy."
Yep; I want us to be different from the horrors of the past. I don't
want a single company choosing a 'meritocracy' for me, where I can be
endlessly told by minor- (& non-) contributors to the project what
(mostly) cannot be done, substantially against the will of what the
majority of core contributors would want. If that means an eye-patch and
a wooden leg - it sounds like a good trade-off to me :-) Avoiding forced
conscription, rum, worse and the lash in 'the Navy' sounds like a good
plan to me ;-)
> And then all this independence is somewhat fake in that
> LibreOffice seems condemned to carry OpenOffice.org
> LGPL3 headers unless they get new headers from AOO.
Yes - sure; we need a one-shot partial
re-basing/conversion/re-licensing to get the code that we laboured on
for many years under an acceptable, future-proof, copy-left license.
That in no sense means we will be 'based on Apache OpenOffice
Incubating' - we will not be.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- Sab 17/12/11, Michael Meeks ha scritto:
>
> Sure - if it is easier for us to include
> an existing feature, under an
> acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother
> re-writing it ?
> conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
>
And it's usually so much easier to take. Steve jobs
had a famous quote about that that I don't remember
very well ;-).
> I don't want anyone to get the idea that
> LibreOffice will be based on
> AOOI, and that this is going to be the rule.
It's rather interesting that for AOO the OpenOffice.org
legacy is essential. We are different from OOo in the
freedom given by the Apache License but otherwise we
are the continuation of the SUN/Oracle legacy.
LibreOffice instead seems to be more interested in
showing independence from what would seem to have been
the past "oppressive" Oracle/SUN regime. Again Steve Jobs
had a good quote for this "It's more fun to be a pirate
than to join the navy."
And then all this independence is somewhat fake in that
LibreOffice seems condemned to carry OpenOffice.org
LGPL3 headers unless they get new headers from AOO.
Just thinking out loud :-P.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Michael Meeks <mi...@suse.com>.
Hi Rob,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 09:49 -0500, Rob Weir wrote:
> > Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> > http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
...
> What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that
> LibreOffice is something different than OpenOffice.org rather than 90%
> the same, derived from OpenOffice.
You know - I would think the title of my blog:
________________________________________________________________________
Trying to visualise Open Source OpenOffice.org derivatives
And the title embedded in the graph image:
"Recent history of Legacy OpenOffice Ecosystem Derivatives"
Made this pretty plain :-) Of course the exact lineage of each build
from each vendor follows a rather tangled path; but no-one is trying to
deny a common ancestor between AOOI and LibreOffice.
> It fails to show that there always has always been an
> ecosystem of projects derived from OOo code.
Sure - my graph is mostly interested in trying to present a more
balanced view of the present, from which hopefully people may have a
better grasp of the future. Yours was (in context) talking about the
legacy tail, and frequent forking of the code-base as your title makes
clear, which is fine too in it's original context. I think extrapolating
from it carries some risk though; and it is sad to have so few
LibreOffice releases rendered.
> The fact is every user of LO is also a user of OOo code.
Sure, and every user of AOOI is also a user of OOo code, many of us
were also very long term contributors to OOo and hence (by extension,
and unwittingly to AOOI) :-)
> It is part of that ecosystem.
cf. the title of my post, and slides :-)
> Not just the past, but also the future. For example, I see that
> Michael is looking forward to using ("cherry picking") our recent
> improvements in SVG support:
Sure - if it is easier for us to include an existing feature, under an
acceptable license into LibreOffice why would we bother re-writing it ?
conversely if it is easier to re-write, why not ?
I don't want anyone to get the idea that LibreOffice will be based on
AOOI, and that this is going to be the rule. The term "cherry picking"
is used advisedly - if there are cherries worth picking someone -may-
pick them from time to time as/when licensing is squared up on both
sides.
All the best,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@suse.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
> On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>>
>> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
>> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
>> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>
> Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
>
> While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity.
>
What that chart fails to show is the family tree. it suggests that
LibreOffice is something different than OpenOffice.org rather than 90%
the same, derived from OpenOffice. It fails to show that there always
has always been an ecosystem of projects derived from OOo code.
The fact is every user of LO is also a user of OOo code. It is part
of that ecosystem. Not just the past, but also the future. For
example, I see that Michael is looking forward to using ("cherry
picking") our recent improvements in SVG support:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-December/021884.html
This is wonderful.
-Rob
> S.
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 17 Dec 2011, at 01:29, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>
> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
Did you also see Michael Meeks' attempt to visualise this context?
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-11-18-graphs.html
While it's also flawed, it has a number of advantages over Rob's graph in helping people understand the current state of the community and the extent of its diversity.
S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
>
> Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
> don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
> (or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
>
Sure. And let me know if you need any modifications. I should have
the source file on my hard drive someplace.
-Rob
> Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 15 November 2011 22:47, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
Rob. I might need to reuse this, can I assume it is OK to do so. I
don't plan to edit it in any way, just rename it to "oo-derivatives"
(or similar) and move to an apache.org address.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>>
>>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>>> OOo ecosystem.
>>>
>>
>> Of course, an AOOo release would be the best possible vehicle for
>> expressing a proactive message. But until we have that, I could
>> certainly see the value of having a statement on what we are, what we
>> believe, what we stand for, etc. At graduation time we'd draft a
>> charter for the new TLP. But today we don't have anything.
>>
>
> Partly, I can see a number of FUDisms to address. Like there are
> only 2 "main players" within the Open Office ecosystem (Apache and
> TDF) and that people need to "choose" between one or the other;
> that the various versions compete against each other instead of
> complimenting each other; Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
> such as Open Office and ODF; how there is much more potential for
> Open Office than as "just" a end-user MS Office replacement; etc...
>
For background, you might be interested in this graphic I made, a
while ago, pre-AOOo. It is a timeline showing the releases of the
various OOo-derivitives over time:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/oo-forks.png
You are exactly right that the history has been one of diversity and
sharing. And beyond that you have the OSS applications that are not
based on the same source code, like KOffice/Calligra Suite, AbiWord,
Gnumeric, and newer mobile/web based ones like WebODF, freOffice,
HarmattanOffice, etc.
So there has been a broad ecosystem of applications using the same
code base. Some were modest repackaging of the core code, while
others had more ambitious code changes. And then there is the wider
ecosystem of ODF-supporting applications, which include the OOo family
of editors, but also KOffice/AbiWord, etc. as well as ODF supporting
tools like the Apache ODF Toolkit (incubating) and the lpOD Python
libraries.
-Rob
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 15, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>
>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>> OOo ecosystem.
>>
>
> Of course, an AOOo release would be the best possible vehicle for
> expressing a proactive message. But until we have that, I could
> certainly see the value of having a statement on what we are, what we
> believe, what we stand for, etc. At graduation time we'd draft a
> charter for the new TLP. But today we don't have anything.
>
Partly, I can see a number of FUDisms to address. Like there are
only 2 "main players" within the Open Office ecosystem (Apache and
TDF) and that people need to "choose" between one or the other;
that the various versions compete against each other instead of
complimenting each other; Why the AL is important for such a "standard"
such as Open Office and ODF; how there is much more potential for
Open Office than as "just" a end-user MS Office replacement; etc...
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>
> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
> OOo ecosystem.
>
Of course, an AOOo release would be the best possible vehicle for
expressing a proactive message. But until we have that, I could
certainly see the value of having a statement on what we are, what we
believe, what we stand for, etc. At graduation time we'd draft a
charter for the new TLP. But today we don't have anything.
> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
> that sets the record straight.
>
Hmm... maybe we have different things in mind. I was thinking more of
a manifesto type statement. "We are the Apache OpenOffice podling.
These are the things we believe are important..." and then list 10
things and end with, "Here's how you can help...".
That would be proactive, not reactionary.
> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>
We could work on it collaboratively on the wiki.
> Comments?
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 15 November 2011 14:38, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Louis,
>
> On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> Jim,
>> I'd be happy to help draft this and promote it. As you may know, I've
>> been wanting to send such a letter, anyway, and have independently
>> been making efforts to communicate to the ecosystems (note plural).
>>
>> Further, as I was fairly instrumental in setting many of these up and
>> certainly in promoting them, I hope my effort would be helpful.
>
> As I explore the N-L portions of the OOo website the diversity of and facets to this global effort is amazing. You have played a huge role.
>
> I think a summary / taxonomy of the real global ecosystem would be a helpful history to have available to AOOo. Is this something you could start on the Wiki?
Sure; of course, as with any thing like this, my efforts have only
been possible, let alone realized with the collaboration of
others—many others. But I think rather than a history, as such, or
even a chronology, an accounting of what is going on, and evolving,
would be more to the point, with local histories providing the
narrative (e.g., history of OOo in Romania, or efforts to get it going
in Botswana, France, etc.). My interest lies in continuing the
expansion and depth of OOo (now, I'd guess, AOO) development and use.
>
> The N-L sites are an area where AOOo is on the cusp of deciding which ones to archive until people show up and which ones have volunteers who wish to participate.
That was the idea. But a purposeful failure—as with the build system
that Mathias pointed out as non reproducible except by those of the
Sysyphean persuasion—was established first by Sun and brilliantly so:
the non provision and allocation of resources to education of
developers. It matters little if we have contributors only to find
that we have no easy way to graduate them to developers.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
Best,
louis
>
>>
>> -louis
>>
>> On 15 November 2011 12:46, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>>
>>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>>> OOo ecosystem.
>>>
>>> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
>>> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
>>> that sets the record straight.
>>>
>>> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>>
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Louis,
On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Jim,
> I'd be happy to help draft this and promote it. As you may know, I've
> been wanting to send such a letter, anyway, and have independently
> been making efforts to communicate to the ecosystems (note plural).
>
> Further, as I was fairly instrumental in setting many of these up and
> certainly in promoting them, I hope my effort would be helpful.
As I explore the N-L portions of the OOo website the diversity of and facets to this global effort is amazing. You have played a huge role.
I think a summary / taxonomy of the real global ecosystem would be a helpful history to have available to AOOo. Is this something you could start on the Wiki?
The N-L sites are an area where AOOo is on the cusp of deciding which ones to archive until people show up and which ones have volunteers who wish to participate.
Regards,
Dave
>
> -louis
>
> On 15 November 2011 12:46, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>
>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>> OOo ecosystem.
>>
>> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
>> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
>> that sets the record straight.
>>
>> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>>
>> Comments?
>>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
Jim,
I'd be happy to help draft this and promote it. As you may know, I've
been wanting to send such a letter, anyway, and have independently
been making efforts to communicate to the ecosystems (note plural).
Further, as I was fairly instrumental in setting many of these up and
certainly in promoting them, I hope my effort would be helpful.
-louis
On 15 November 2011 12:46, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>
> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
> OOo ecosystem.
>
> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
> that sets the record straight.
>
> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>
> Comments?
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
I just want to make one observation that is critical to understanding
how Apache projects work:
On 2011-11-16 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
...snip...
> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and
> bugfixing issues,
>
> Martin
I would strongly urge everyone here to read the brief Code of Conduct
for Apache projects here:
http://community.apache.org/newbiefaq.html#NewbieFAQ-IsthereaCodeofConductforApacheprojects?
In particular, the old saying that "If it didn't happen on a mailing
list, it didn't happen." is critically important to understand.
I know that Martin and others have done a tremendous amount of work for
the past OpenOffice.org project, and I bet that he and others will
continue to create great code in the future OOo related ecosystem.
However the comment above is quite disingenuous, given that none of that
work (as far as I can tell) in terms of code or planning has been here
on ooo-dev@.
The Apache OpenOffice podling is truly happy to have people donate their
work to the podling, and hopes more people will choose to contribute
their work collaboratively here on the list. We are also - as all
Apache projects are - happy to have third parties take the code we
produce under our permissive Apache License and use it for virtually any
purpose they wish. All that we ask when you take are code is that you
follow the license, and that you respect our identity, brands, and
trademarks.
- Shane, mentor for AOO podling
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Stefan Taxhet <st...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
Am 17.11.2011 08:51, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel
> signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA.
Martin and I sent signed iCLAs to secretary@
Is there a page where this should be/is acknowledged or
did we miss some additional formality?
> There are many more than four people involved.
>
> The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
Please point us to the phrase you want to be used.
Is it just the adaption of the phrases that are at
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/list/ ?
> The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
We plan to mention the players in the arena (Apache/AOO, TDF/LO) on the
website. Which form of recognition of the Apache project could you think of?
And yes, we are aware that the website content in general needs an update.
Greetings
Stefan
> I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly respectful actions beforehand.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As much as we would like to do an interim release I am
>>> afraid there are issues that won't make it possible:
>>>
>>> - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and
>>> can only be released under an Apache License.
>>> - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing
>>> 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity.
>>> - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it
>>> hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible
>>> here in the community (sorry if I just missed it).
>>>
>>> This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to
>>> hurry things but I think we are moving in the right
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/17/11 7:15 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> Both Stefan and Martin have iCLAs on file. Both signed up on the Incubator Proposal as Initial Committers. Stefan completed the process to be established as a committer. He is also eligible to be on the PPMC.
I thought I did also, but maybe I got lost somewhere in process,
Martin
> Communication and administrative delays, sometimes mine, often arise in the establishment of committers. The process is conducted privately until completed. The only public notification made by the PPMC is when committers are established (and they appear on the Apache roster of committers).
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 06:39
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Dave Fisher<da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>>> Hi Martin;
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>>>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>>>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>>>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>>>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>>>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>>>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>>>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>>>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>>>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>>>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>>>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>>>> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>>>>
>>>> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>>>>
>>>> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have.
>>> What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial
>>> Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA.
>> What makes you think that? See: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
> I looked but it seems my searches on that page failed last night.
>
> Please excuse me on this. Stefan is properly connected to the project, but we've seen no email from him until today. I'm not sure why Martin is not properly signed up.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> --tim
RE: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Both Stefan and Martin have iCLAs on file. Both signed up on the Incubator Proposal as Initial Committers. Stefan completed the process to be established as a committer. He is also eligible to be on the PPMC.
Communication and administrative delays, sometimes mine, often arise in the establishment of committers. The process is conducted privately until completed. The only public notification made by the PPMC is when committers are established (and they appear on the Apache roster of committers).
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 06:39
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>> Hi Martin;
>>>>
>>>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>>>
>>> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>>>
>>> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>>>
>>> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>>>
>>> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have.
>>
>> What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial
>> Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA.
>
> What makes you think that? See: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
I looked but it seems my searches on that page failed last night.
Please excuse me on this. Stefan is properly connected to the project, but we've seen no email from him until today. I'm not sure why Martin is not properly signed up.
Regards,
Dave
>
> --tim
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:30 AM, Tim Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>>> Hi Martin;
>>>>
>>>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>>>
>>> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>>>
>>> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>>>
>>> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>>>
>>> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have.
>>
>> What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial
>> Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA.
>
> What makes you think that? See: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
I looked but it seems my searches on that page failed last night.
Please excuse me on this. Stefan is properly connected to the project, but we've seen no email from him until today. I'm not sure why Martin is not properly signed up.
Regards,
Dave
>
> --tim
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> Hi Martin;
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>>
>> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>>
>> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>>
>> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>>
>> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have.
>
> What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial
> Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA.
What makes you think that? See: http://people.apache.org/committer-index.html
--tim
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Martin,
> >>
> >> On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >> >>> Hi Martin;
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
> >> >>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
> >> >>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
> >> >>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
> >> >>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Please let us know your plans.
> >> >>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
> >> >>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
> >> >>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
> >> >>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
> >> >>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
> >> >>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
> >> >>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
> >> >>
> >> >> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the
> Apache
> >> lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able
> to
> >> see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's
> >> Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of
> work.
> >> >>
> >> >> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding
> work
> >> here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the
> PPMC
> >> that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the
> >> excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim
> >> release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging
> >> questions you might have.
> >> >
> >> > What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and
> >> Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project,
> >> but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people
> >> involved.
> >> >
> >> > The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that
> >> OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software
> Foundation.
> >> >
> >> > The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly
> >> respectful actions beforehand.
> >>
> >> The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place!
> >>
> >> > Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org!
> >> > The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine
> >> article is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen!
> >>
> >> Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article
> is
> >> not under threat.
> >>
> >> It has been a month since:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev
> >>
> >> I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team
> OOo
> >> to the project, I know I do.
> >>
> >
> > Absolutely agree. These guys are very welcome to align with this project.
> >
> >>
> >> It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC
> >> about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand.
> >>
> >> +1 We will continue to ask for this, but in the meantime, the web site
> > language you cite above must come down. There is no 'threat' to
> > OpenOffice.org.
>
> If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
> project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
> trademark?
>
>
Apache officers have requested a proposal from the Team OpenOffice people.
AFAIK, no proposal has been received. In the meantime, the language on
their website is damaging to the OpenOffice.org trademark and brand.
It's unlikely the PPMC will permit use of the OpenOffice.org trademark
until such time as their web site is corrected, and a proposal is received
for consideration.
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> If you are looking for permission to use the trademarks, then you
> should follow the instructions here:
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>
> The PPMC approves first, and then sends to Trademarks@
OK. I will follow those steps.
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Ross,
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ross Gardler
> <rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> A question to trademarks@Apache.org will yield an answer quickly if anyone
>> needs to know.
>
> Thanks. I will subscribe trademarks@Apache.org and post my question.
> http://sites.google.com/site/khirano/-magokoro-project
> I and my project are planning to create OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 CD and
> design CD label in cooperation with Japan Open Source Software
> Promotion Forum.
> http://openoffice.exblog.jp/13617785/
> I am wondering what I should do with OpenOffice.org trademark.
> http://ooo-site.apache.org/images/ooo-logo.png
> Can I use this on the CD label?
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/apache-incubator-logo.png
> Should I put this on the CD label?
>
If you are looking for permission to use the trademarks, then you
should follow the instructions here:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
The PPMC approves first, and then sends to Trademarks@
-Rob
> I will ask trademarks@Apache.org
> :)
>
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Ross,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ross Gardler
<rg...@opendirective.com> wrote:
> A question to trademarks@Apache.org will yield an answer quickly if anyone
> needs to know.
Thanks. I will subscribe trademarks@Apache.org and post my question.
http://sites.google.com/site/khirano/-magokoro-project
I and my project are planning to create OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 CD and
design CD label in cooperation with Japan Open Source Software
Promotion Forum.
http://openoffice.exblog.jp/13617785/
I am wondering what I should do with OpenOffice.org trademark.
http://ooo-site.apache.org/images/ooo-logo.png
Can I use this on the CD label?
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/apache-incubator-logo.png
Should I put this on the CD label?
I will ask trademarks@Apache.org
:)
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 28, 2011 8:05 AM, "Kazunari Hirano" <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I have no idea. But my impression was that Oracle was not withholding
> > any relevant trademarks or domain names from us.
>
> Thanks. We will get concrete answers later some day I hope :)
A question to trademarks@Apache.org will yield an answer quickly if anyone
needs to know.
Ross
>
> Thanks,
> khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have no idea. But my impression was that Oracle was not withholding
> any relevant trademarks or domain names from us.
Thanks. We will get concrete answers later some day I hope :)
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
2011/11/26 Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Maybe think of it this way; Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to rebrand
>> itself as "KFC" because the wanted to deemphasize the "fried" part,
>> for modern health-conscious consumers. But that doesn't meant that
>> anyone can go out and open a store and call it "Kentucky Friend
>> Chicken". Both trademarks continue to be enforced.
>>
>> (Do you have KFC in Japan?)
>
> Yes, we have KFC in Japan.
> http://www.kfc.co.jp/
> We sometimes recognize "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and very few mouth it.
> We often recognize "ケンタッキーフライドチキン" or "ケンタッキー" and mouth it.
> http://www20.big.or.jp/~nisiguti/store/kfc.html
>
> We had "StarSuite," "スタースイート," in Japan.
> http://thenetworkisthecomputer.com/site/?p=699
> :)
>
> Now does the ASF control use of "OpenOffice.org" trademark localized versions?
> You can see some examples,
> http://openoffice.exblog.jp/7629990/
> [OOoCon Beijing Logo] English version
> Simplified Chinese version
> Korean version Khmer version
> Mayan version
> Traditional Chinese version
> Japanese version
> :)
I have no idea. But my impression was that Oracle was not withholding
any relevant trademarks or domain names from us.
-Rob
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob,
Thanks.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Maybe think of it this way; Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to rebrand
> itself as "KFC" because the wanted to deemphasize the "fried" part,
> for modern health-conscious consumers. But that doesn't meant that
> anyone can go out and open a store and call it "Kentucky Friend
> Chicken". Both trademarks continue to be enforced.
>
> (Do you have KFC in Japan?)
Yes, we have KFC in Japan.
http://www.kfc.co.jp/
We sometimes recognize "Kentucky Fried Chicken" and very few mouth it.
We often recognize "ケンタッキーフライドチキン" or "ケンタッキー" and mouth it.
http://www20.big.or.jp/~nisiguti/store/kfc.html
We had "StarSuite," "スタースイート," in Japan.
http://thenetworkisthecomputer.com/site/?p=699
:)
Now does the ASF control use of "OpenOffice.org" trademark localized versions?
You can see some examples,
http://openoffice.exblog.jp/7629990/
[OOoCon Beijing Logo] English version
Simplified Chinese version
Korean version Khmer version
Mayan version
Traditional Chinese version
Japanese version
:)
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:03 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Shane, Jim and all,
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>>>
>>> If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
>>> project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
>>> trademark?
>>>
>>
>> Why would we want to? You don't reward "bad behavior" so even
>> if the ASF did want to "give" the OOo brand to some 3rd
>> party (which we for sure do NOT want to do), it certainly
>> wouldn't be TOOo
>
> I see.
>
> I was just wondering what the ASF keeps holding the OpenOffice.org
> trademark for if Apache OpenOffice the project will develop and
> release Apache OpenOffice the product.
>
Maybe think of it this way; Kentucky Fried Chicken decided to rebrand
itself as "KFC" because the wanted to deemphasize the "fried" part,
for modern health-conscious consumers. But that doesn't meant that
anyone can go out and open a store and call it "Kentucky Friend
Chicken". Both trademarks continue to be enforced.
(Do you have KFC in Japan?)
Regards,
-Rob
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Shane, Jim and all,
Thanks.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Jim Jagielski <ji...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>>
>> If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
>> project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
>> trademark?
>>
>
> Why would we want to? You don't reward "bad behavior" so even
> if the ASF did want to "give" the OOo brand to some 3rd
> party (which we for sure do NOT want to do), it certainly
> wouldn't be TOOo
I see.
I was just wondering what the ASF keeps holding the OpenOffice.org
trademark for if Apache OpenOffice the project will develop and
release Apache OpenOffice the product.
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Nov 17, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
>
> If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
> project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
> trademark?
>
Why would we want to? You don't reward "bad behavior" so even
if the ASF did want to "give" the OOo brand to some 3rd
party (which we for sure do NOT want to do), it certainly
wouldn't be TOOo
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-11-17 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano wrote:
...snip...
> If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
> project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
> trademark?
No, the ASF will not do that.
- Shane, VP, Brand Management
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob and all,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > And that is fine. A trademark is for a particular category of
> > product. The Japanese trademark is not for personal productivity
> > applications. It is possible for the same name to be used in
> > different trademarks, if they are used for different things and they
> > would not cause confusion.
>
> I see. Thanks.
>
> Now who will confuse "Apache OpenOffice" with "OpenOffice.org"?
>
> We will continue to show OpenOffice.org on the web site(s); the
product(s), etc. that are derived from the original contribution according
to Apache Software Foundation Trademark policy. Now that we have a decision
by majority ballot for 'Apache OpenOffice', the PPMC needs to follow the
recommendations as defined the ASF here.[1]
Look for a new topic on 'next steps' for this topic. It doesn't belong on
this thread.
[1]http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility.html
I will start
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob and all,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> And that is fine. A trademark is for a particular category of
> product. The Japanese trademark is not for personal productivity
> applications. It is possible for the same name to be used in
> different trademarks, if they are used for different things and they
> would not cause confusion.
I see. Thanks.
Now who will confuse "Apache OpenOffice" with "OpenOffice.org"?
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob and all,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I don't think so. Part of protecting a brand is to prevent "confusing
>> similarity"., For example, we could not go out and sell soft drinks
>> under the name "Coca-Cola.org" or pizza under the name "Pizza
>> Hut.net".
>
> I see.
>
> In Japan "OpenOffice" is the registered trademark (No.4688483,
> registered on July 4, 2003) [1] owned by Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.[2]
>
> [1] http://www1.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/syutsugan/TM_DETAIL_A.cgi?0&2&0&1&5&132153723258785500651374
> [2] http://www.fujixerox.co.jp/company/about/oof.html
>
> We have been using "OpenOffice.org" for a long time in Japan, no problem.
> :)
>
And that is fine. A trademark is for a particular category of
product. The Japanese trademark is not for personal productivity
applications. It is possible for the same name to be used in
different trademarks, if they are used for different things and they
would not cause confusion.
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi Rob and all,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't think so. Part of protecting a brand is to prevent "confusing
> similarity"., For example, we could not go out and sell soft drinks
> under the name "Coca-Cola.org" or pizza under the name "Pizza
> Hut.net".
I see.
In Japan "OpenOffice" is the registered trademark (No.4688483,
registered on July 4, 2003) [1] owned by Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.[2]
[1] http://www1.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/syutsugan/TM_DETAIL_A.cgi?0&2&0&1&5&132153723258785500651374
[2] http://www.fujixerox.co.jp/company/about/oof.html
We have been using "OpenOffice.org" for a long time in Japan, no problem.
:)
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> >>> Hi Martin;
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>> >>> ...
>>> >>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> >>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>> >>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>> ...
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>> >>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>> >>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>> >>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>> >>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>> >>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>> >>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>> >>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>> >>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>> >>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>> >>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>>> >>
>>> >> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache
>>> lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>>> >>
>>> >> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to
>>> see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's
>>> Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>>> >>
>>> >> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work
>>> here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC
>>> that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the
>>> excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>>> >>
>>> >> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim
>>> release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging
>>> questions you might have.
>>> >
>>> > What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and
>>> Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project,
>>> but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people
>>> involved.
>>> >
>>> > The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that
>>> OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
>>> >
>>> > The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
>>> >
>>> > I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly
>>> respectful actions beforehand.
>>>
>>> The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place!
>>>
>>> > Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org!
>>> > The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine
>>> article is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen!
>>>
>>> Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article is
>>> not under threat.
>>>
>>> It has been a month since:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev
>>>
>>> I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team OOo
>>> to the project, I know I do.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely agree. These guys are very welcome to align with this project.
>>
>>>
>>> It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC
>>> about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand.
>>>
>>> +1 We will continue to ask for this, but in the meantime, the web site
>> language you cite above must come down. There is no 'threat' to
>> OpenOffice.org.
>
> If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
> project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
> trademark?
>
I don't think so. Part of protecting a brand is to prevent "confusing
similarity"., For example, we could not go out and sell soft drinks
under the name "Coca-Cola.org" or pizza under the name "Pizza
Hut.net".
-Rob
> Thanks,
> khirano
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Kazunari Hirano <kh...@gmail.com>.
Hi all,
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Martin,
>>
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> >>> Hi Martin;
>> >>>
>> >>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> >>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>> >>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>> ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>> >>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>> >>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>> >>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>> >>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>> >>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>> >>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>> >>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>> >>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>> >>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>> >>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>> >>
>> >> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache
>> lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to
>> see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's
>> Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>> >>
>> >> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work
>> here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC
>> that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the
>> excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>> >>
>> >> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim
>> release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging
>> questions you might have.
>> >
>> > What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and
>> Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project,
>> but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people
>> involved.
>> >
>> > The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that
>> OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
>> >
>> > The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
>> >
>> > I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly
>> respectful actions beforehand.
>>
>> The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place!
>>
>> > Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org!
>> > The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine
>> article is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen!
>>
>> Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article is
>> not under threat.
>>
>> It has been a month since:
>>
>>
>> http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev
>>
>> I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team OOo
>> to the project, I know I do.
>>
>
> Absolutely agree. These guys are very welcome to align with this project.
>
>>
>> It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC
>> about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand.
>>
>> +1 We will continue to ask for this, but in the meantime, the web site
> language you cite above must come down. There is no 'threat' to
> OpenOffice.org.
If we (Apache) use OpenOffice as product name and Apache OpenOffice as
project name, then we can give Team OOo the OpenOffice.org brand and
trademark?
Thanks,
khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 3:17 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> >
> > On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> >>> Hi Martin;
> >>>
> >>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
> >>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
> >>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
> >>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
> >>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let us know your plans.
> >>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
> >>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
> >>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
> >>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
> >>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
> >>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
> >>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
> >>
> >> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache
> lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
> >>
> >> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to
> see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's
> Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
> >>
> >> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work
> here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC
> that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the
> excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
> >>
> >> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim
> release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging
> questions you might have.
> >
> > What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and
> Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project,
> but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people
> involved.
> >
> > The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that
> OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
> >
> > The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
> >
> > I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly
> respectful actions beforehand.
>
> The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place!
>
> > Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org!
> > The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine
> article is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen!
>
> Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article is
> not under threat.
>
> It has been a month since:
>
>
> http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev
>
> I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team OOo
> to the project, I know I do.
>
Absolutely agree. These guys are very welcome to align with this project.
>
> It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC
> about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand.
>
> +1 We will continue to ask for this, but in the meantime, the web site
language you cite above must come down. There is no 'threat' to
OpenOffice.org.
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >>
> >> - Shane
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> As much as we would like to do an interim release I am
> >>> afraid there are issues that won't make it possible:
> >>>
> >>> - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and
> >>> can only be released under an Apache License.
> >>> - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing
> >>> 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity.
> >>> - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it
> >>> hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible
> >>> here in the community (sorry if I just missed it).
> >>>
> >>> This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to
> >>> hurry things but I think we are moving in the right
> >>> direction.
> >>>
> >>> Pedro.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Martin,
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:51 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> Hi Martin;
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>>
>> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>>
>> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>>
>> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>>
>> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have.
>
> What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people involved.
>
> The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
>
> I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly respectful actions beforehand.
The following text on the teamopenoffice.org site is still in place!
> Your donation counts: Save OpenOffice.org!
> The world needs a free, open source office software – but the genuine article is under threat. We don’t want to let this happen!
Ridiculous! openoffice.org is the Apache project - the genuine article is not under threat.
It has been a month since:
http://www.itworld.com/it-managementstrategy/213997/apache-disavows-team-openofficeorg-ev
I really feel that the individuals on the project want to welcome Team OOo to the project, I know I do.
It is my feeling that Team OOo should make a proposal to the AOOo PPMC about how they wish to use the OpenOffice.org brand.
Regards,
Dave
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>>
>> - Shane
>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> As much as we would like to do an interim release I am
>>> afraid there are issues that won't make it possible:
>>>
>>> - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and
>>> can only be released under an Apache License.
>>> - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing
>>> 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity.
>>> - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it
>>> hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible
>>> here in the community (sorry if I just missed it).
>>>
>>> This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to
>>> hurry things but I think we are moving in the right
>>> direction.
>>>
>>> Pedro.
>>>
>>>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 16, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>> Hi Martin;
>>
>> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>> ...
>>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>> ...
>>>>
>>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>>
>>>> Please let us know your plans.
>>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>
> Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
>
> Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
>
> So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
>
> Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging questions you might have.
What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA. There are many more than four people involved.
The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation.
The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project.
I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly respectful actions beforehand.
Regards,
Dave
>
> - Shane
>
>>>
>>
>> As much as we would like to do an interim release I am
>> afraid there are issues that won't make it possible:
>>
>> - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and
>> can only be released under an Apache License.
>> - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing
>> 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity.
>> - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it
>> hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible
>> here in the community (sorry if I just missed it).
>>
>> This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to
>> hurry things but I think we are moving in the right
>> direction.
>>
>> Pedro.
>>
>>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
On 2011-11-16 3:26 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hi Martin;
>
> --- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
> ...
>> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
>>> <ma...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
> ...
>>>
>>> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
>>> releases can only be made from the Apache Software
>>> Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
>>> release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>>>
>>> Please let us know your plans.
>> we're offering to provide an interim release of
>> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
>> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
>> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
>> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
>> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
>> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
Based on the very little bit of information provided here on the Apache
lists, I can't see how your plans would possibly be approved by the ASF.
Obviously, having more information about your plans, and being able to
see your work in the form of patches or commits to the AOO podling's
Subversion tree would be a great start to be able to do this kind of work.
So my first suggestion is to start doing some of the actual coding work
here, on the ooo-dev@ list. Then, work with the podling to show the
PPMC that this is a good idea, and deserves to proceed together with the
excellent progress the PPMC is making on the 3.4 release.
Then, if the PPMC has a clear consensus to work with such an interim
release plan, we can discuss any trademark, legal, or press/messaging
questions you might have.
- Shane
>>
>
> As much as we would like to do an interim release I am
> afraid there are issues that won't make it possible:
>
> - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and
> can only be released under an Apache License.
> - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing
> 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity.
> - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it
> hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible
> here in the community (sorry if I just missed it).
>
> This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to
> hurry things but I think we are moving in the right
> direction.
>
> Pedro.
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi Martin;
--- On Wed, 11/16/11, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
...
> On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
> > <ma...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
...
> >
> > What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo
> > releases can only be made from the Apache Software
> > Foundation. Perhaps you are planning a downstream
> > release that conforms to our trademark policy.
> >
> > Please let us know your plans.
> we're offering to provide an interim release of
> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 with a joint messaging of ASF and Team
> OpenOffice.org. This would fill the gap between the 3.3.0
> release from beginning of this year (with some known severe
> issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
> convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the
> trust in OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>
As much as we would like to do an interim release I am
afraid there are issues that won't make it possible:
- Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and
can only be released under an Apache License.
- The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing
3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity.
- The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it
hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible
here in the community (sorry if I just missed it).
This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to
hurry things but I think we are moving in the right
direction.
Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/16/11 6:33 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
> <ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is ...
>>
> Do you intend to or have you submitted those patches to AOOo?
the 3.3.1 version we are working on is the old LGPL code basis. Patches
which are also of value for ongoing AOO 3.x work are intended to get
contributed, we'd appreciate your support for doing this.
>
> What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo releases can only
> be made from the Apache Software Foundation. Perhaps you are planning
> a downstream release that conforms to our trademark policy.
>
> Please let us know your plans.
we're offering to provide an interim release of OpenOffice.org 3.3.1
with a joint messaging of ASF and Team OpenOffice.org. This would fill
the gap between the 3.3.0 release from beginning of this year (with some
known severe issues) and the first AOO release in the future. I'm
convinced that this proceeding will help strengthen the trust in
OpenOffice.org / AOO.
>
> Ross
Martin
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
On 16 November 2011 16:56, Martin Hollmichel
<ma...@googlemail.com> wrote:
...
>
> The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is ...
>
Do you intend to or have you submitted those patches to AOOo?
What kind of a "release" are you talking about. OOo releases can only
be made from the Apache Software Foundation. Perhaps you are planning
a downstream release that conforms to our trademark policy.
Please let us know your plans.
Ross
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/16/11 1:15 PM, Donald Harbison wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Martin Hollmichel<
> martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/15/11 6:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>>
>>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>>> OOo ecosystem.
>>>
>>> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
>>> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
>>> that sets the record straight.
>>>
>>> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>>>
>> I think this is an excellent idea, this also fit's in plans to do an
>> interim release OOo 3.3.1 release. We've just done with displaying the OOo
>> readme file after 3.3.1 installation, this would be in ideal place for
>> promoting such an Open Letter,
>>
>>> Are you referring to plans from TeamOpenOffice.org e.V.? What is the
> current status of these? What is the plan for naming and branding? Perhaps
> you can update this community in a separate topic.
removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having
a joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is
some work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances
(forums, mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe
File is another issue we are still working on.
The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and
bugfixing issues,
Martin
>
> Comments?
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Donald Harbison <dp...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Martin Hollmichel <
martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/11 6:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>>
>> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
>> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
>> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
>> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
>> OOo ecosystem.
>>
>> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
>> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
>> that sets the record straight.
>>
>> And I volunteer to drive this task...
>>
> I think this is an excellent idea, this also fit's in plans to do an
> interim release OOo 3.3.1 release. We've just done with displaying the OOo
> readme file after 3.3.1 installation, this would be in ideal place for
> promoting such an Open Letter,
>
>>
>> Are you referring to plans from TeamOpenOffice.org e.V.? What is the
current status of these? What is the plan for naming and branding? Perhaps
you can update this community in a separate topic.
Comments?
>>
> Martin
>
>
>
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 11/15/11 6:46 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I have been mulling this over for a long time...
>
> Up to now, we have been reactionary. We have allowed others to
> control and distort the message, paint things as a "us vs. them"
> battle (simply to position themselves for personal gain in the
> whole debacle), and foster FUD to the clear harm of the ENTIRE
> OOo ecosystem.
>
> I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office
> ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted
> that sets the record straight.
>
> And I volunteer to drive this task...
I think this is an excellent idea, this also fit's in plans to do an
interim release OOo 3.3.1 release. We've just done with displaying the
OOo readme file after 3.3.1 installation, this would be in ideal place
for promoting such an Open Letter,
>
> Comments?
Martin