You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@openoffice.apache.org by wa...@apache.org on 2013/02/02 00:21:23 UTC
svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Author: wave
Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
New Revision: 1441659
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
Log:
No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
Modified:
openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original)
+++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
@@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
- [License](/license.html)
- [Trademarks](/trademarks.html)
- [Press](/press.html)
+ - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/)
+
# Community
- [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org> wrote:
> Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to make an adjustment.
>
> If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is ok. My point is about letting time pass.
>
Dave, you did not respond in two weeks to the Bugzilla issue where I
made the same objection.
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624
Sorry if if I did not sit around for 2 hours on my Friday evening to
see if you were paying attention.
Could communications have been better on this? Yes, certainly. But
the important thing is we've now escalated this to get a definitive
answer.
-Rob
> You do a lot for OpenOffice and that is great!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> -1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
>>>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
>>>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
>>>> right?
>>>
>>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
>>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
>>> convincing rationale to the community...
>>
>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
>> and did not act quickly.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>
>>> --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@apache.org>.
Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to make an adjustment.
If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is ok. My point is about letting time pass.
You do a lot for OpenOffice and that is great!
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>>>
>>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>>
>>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
>>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
>>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
>>> right?
>>
>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
>> convincing rationale to the community...
>
> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
> and did not act quickly.
>
> -Rob
>
>>
>> --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>>
>>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>
>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
>> right?
>
> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
> convincing rationale to the community...
Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar
circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong
then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right
and did not act quickly.
-Rob
>
> --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>>
>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>>
>
> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
> right?
Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You
raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided
convincing rationale to the community...
--tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> -1
>>>
>>
>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
>
> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
>
IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over
one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it
because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together,
right?
> +1 on your change to my commit.
>
> Go ahead and get an opinion from trademarks@. I think that they will say that this fits a registered trademark other than the US trademark. For example the one in China. A clarification is needed, but not on legal-discuss.
>
I've read over the Chinese registration, via Google translates, and I
don't see it applying to websites. But perhaps someone on trademarks@
has some better Chinese legal advice.
Regards,
-Rob
> Best Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
>>> you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your
>>> intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually
>>> risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark
>>> registration is explicitly for software, not for a website.
>>>
>>> So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't
>>> want to mess around with trademark fraud.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> The next shed to bike ;-)
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, wave@apache.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Author: wave
>>>>> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>>>>> New Revision: 1441659
>>>>>
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
>>>>> Log:
>>>>> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified:
>>>>> openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>>>>
>>>>> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original)
>>>>> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>>>>> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
>>>>> - [License](/license.html)
>>>>> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html)
>>>>> - [Press](/press.html)
>>>>> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/)
>>>>> +
>>>>> # Community
>>>>>
>>>>> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> -1
>>
>
> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK.
+1 on your change to my commit.
Go ahead and get an opinion from trademarks@. I think that they will say that this fits a registered trademark other than the US trademark. For example the one in China. A clarification is needed, but not on legal-discuss.
Best Regards,
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>> Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
>> you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your
>> intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually
>> risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark
>> registration is explicitly for software, not for a website.
>>
>> So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't
>> want to mess around with trademark fraud.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> The next shed to bike ;-)
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, wave@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: wave
>>>> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>>>> New Revision: 1441659
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>> openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>>>
>>>> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original)
>>>> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>>>> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
>>>> - [License](/license.html)
>>>> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html)
>>>> - [Press](/press.html)
>>>> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/)
>>>> +
>>>> # Community
>>>>
>>>> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1
>
I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious
repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right.
-Rob
> Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
> you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your
> intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually
> risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark
> registration is explicitly for software, not for a website.
>
> So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't
> want to mess around with trademark fraud.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Rob
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The next shed to bike ;-)
>>
>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, wave@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: wave
>>> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>>> New Revision: 1441659
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>>
>>> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff
>>> ==============================================================================
>>> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original)
>>> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>>> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
>>> - [License](/license.html)
>>> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html)
>>> - [Press](/press.html)
>>> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/)
>>> +
>>> # Community
>>>
>>> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
>>>
>>>
>>
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
-1
Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know
you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your
intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually
risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark
registration is explicitly for software, not for a website.
So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't
want to mess around with trademark fraud.
Thanks.
-Rob
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The next shed to bike ;-)
>
> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, wave@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: wave
>> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>> New Revision: 1441659
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
>> Log:
>> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
>>
>> Modified:
>> openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>>
>> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff
>> ==============================================================================
>> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original)
>> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
>> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
>> - [License](/license.html)
>> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html)
>> - [Press](/press.html)
>> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/)
>> +
>> # Community
>>
>> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
>>
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
The next shed to bike ;-)
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, wave@apache.org wrote:
> Author: wave
> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
> New Revision: 1441659
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev
> Log:
> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org
>
> Modified:
> openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
>
> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original)
> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013
> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@
> - [License](/license.html)
> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html)
> - [Press](/press.html)
> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/)
> +
> # Community
>
> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html)
>
>