Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
121 messages Options
Next » 1 ... 34567 « Prev
Simos Xenitellis Simos Xenitellis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:49 AM, BRM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not
> necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to
> receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically distributed
> to. If you are are not someone that received the product distributed by them,
> then you have no rights to receive the source - plain & simple.

As I said earlier, you do not need to be a copyright holder to request
the source code
of a copyleft software.

Simos

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 15:50, Dennis E. Hamilton
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>...
> If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to my code that they make.

No, you cannot.

Copyright Law applies to certain actions taken with copyrighted works.
In particular, as the copyright holder you have certain exclusive
rights. For US law, please refer to [1]. When you grant a license, you
allow the recipient to also have those rights, under your terms.

"Use" of your copyrighted work and "modification" are not one of your
exclusive rights. You cannot force a recipient to follow your terms
when they perform those actions.

The first three of those rights (reproduce, produce derivatives, and
distribute) are the rights generally used in the FLOSS world[2].
Somebody simply making modifcations in private does not fall under
those actions, so you have no way to force a recipient to return those
changes to you.

For that... you must resort to Contract Law, which is something
entirely different. (and that is what EULAs attempt to operate under,
but they often run into problems around "both parties agreeing to the
contract").

Cheers,
-g

[1] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106
[2] people have also tried to use "public performance" and "display"
to apply restrictions; see the AGPL

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Greg Stein Greg Stein
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simos Xenitellis
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>...
>> The key thing being "that person". That person is most likely not You,
>> the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get
>> those changes unless "that person" decides to pass them back to you.
>>
>> So you don't necessarily have a "right" to the code. You are relying
>> on the goodwill of "that person" to help you out. Of course, they
>> might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not
>> ever ask for the source code.
>>
>
> It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux),
> you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for
> the Linux source code.
>
> See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text,
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
>
> “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution,”

That written offer goes to the recipient (your statement comes from
3(b), which is dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks
about distributions to a recipient). The recipient does not need to
transfer or pass that offer to third parties.

Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get changes returned.

Cheers,
-g

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Andrea Pescetti Andrea Pescetti
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Dennis E. Hamilton
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license
> that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with
> the changes to my code that they make.  ...
> PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a
> compulsory condition and it would be interesting to see what the FSF
> would say in the event someone sublicensed a GPL derivative in that
> manner.

Adding to what Greg already wrote (i.e., you need that a distribution of
the software happens in order to enforce this), this requirement is
considered compatible with Free Software licenses. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (search for "previous
developer" or read the last line about revision 1.11).

But it is not possible to attach it to existing LGPL3/GPL3 code since it
would violate section 10 of GPL3:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD

Regards,
  Andrea.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Dennis E. Hamilton Dennis E. Hamilton
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by BRM
I'm sorry. I have IBM Lotus Symphony 3.0 with fixpack 2 installed on my computer and I didn't pay anyone for it.

It is free to download.  Registration required.  That's it.  

If I want support, that is different.  Not much different than with Sun Star Office and Oracle Office, actually.

True, they have not offered me the source code.  But still, free as in free beer was enough for my purposes.  

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: BRM [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 14:50
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[ ... ]
 
Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may
not.

They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those
people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to
be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from.

[ ... ]


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Michael Meeks Michael Meeks
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Allen Pulsifer
Hi Allen,

        So - first, I've enjoyed interacting with you over many years around
OO.o / LibreOffice :-) and I value many of your insights.

On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 10:43 -0400, Allen Pulsifer wrote:
> > Thorsten Behrens wrote:
..
> I do not agree with your conclusion that the Apache OpenOffice
> project is a competing project.

        The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
SUV manufacturers compete with hybrid car vendors for mindshare,
marketshare etc. despite having somewhat different product emphasis. I
think you need to re-consider your argument comparing python with OO.o
with LibreOffice here - they are simply not comparable as a proportion
of each other, and as sources of bugs / problems etc.

> Second, I can recommend that LibreOffice contributors join Apache
> OpenOffice because I am firmly convinced that would be in the best
> interests of the LibreOffice project.

        Joining is one thing - fair enough for some to be included. But
knowingly making life harder for LibreOffice by contributing code to ASF
and thus helping the code-bases to diverge is a different thing.

> Here's what could have been:

        Hypothetical different worlds don't always work out so swimmingly in
real life.

> Instead, due to your personal issues

        You appear to assert the conclusion to your argument. Personally, I
have a great deal of respect for Thorsten - his substantial raw
contribution, his judgement and so on. I don't believe he has
substantial personal issues on this topic :-)

> no matter how much it is denied, the nagging feeling persists
> that it might be true; and that the LibreOffice community refuses
> to work with IBM or the Apache Foundation for personal reasons.

        There are many motivations for not working with the ASF, sure you can
cherry pick some that are some transient soreness from having done a ton
of work for OO.o, then seeing our views ignored, our governance
duplicated and our wise licensing choices crippled. Certainly some
people would feel offended by being told what to do, and what is and is
not possible by many new faces that have never contributed a single
thing to the project :-) That is not a surprise, just human nature - and
as you point out it is not really a good reason to do anything:
proposals (no matter how poorly articulated) should be evaluated on
their merits. I don't believe we are deciding this sort of thing on that
basis however.

        There are a multitude of good business, ethical, pragmatic, structural
and common-sense problems with wholeheartedly embracing IBM's move
facilitated by the ASF. Those are the ones that are worth discussing.
Having said that - personally, I don't believe that any of these issues
is susceptible to negotiation, ASF is what it is - and arguably WYSIWYG
- it was chosen primarily because it structurally cannot change any of
these things. Ergo, (as I've said) engaging with it on the basis that
change is possible is not a productive use of time. My plan is to simply
wait and see whether the promised benefits of AL2 arrive, that seems the
only sensible course of action as of now.

> With just a few simple actions on your part, you could have
> accomplished in a few minutes what would have taken you at least
> a year to accomplish with just programming (if it can even be
> accomplished that way at all).

        We could also have severely confused our contributor-base, and landed
them in the ASF's lap: code and all, substantially contributing to a
vision of the world that I find pragmatically unhelpful for software
freedom, and driving away another great chunk of our contributors. Sure
- it would have been only a few simple actions to assure that outcome,
to me though that medicine is far worse than the problem it supposedly
fixes. Ultimately, to me - the people doing the work are more valuable
than gold-dust around here; which is just one reason why I love, and
listen carefully to Thorsten: he is such an effective hacker.

> So my all means, continue forward with your decision that your
> personal story is what really matters.

        Software freedom is built on the work of countless un-sung heroes
investing their time and effort to build something better. I like their
stories. To try to totally de-couple cold/calculating software decisions
from real flesh and blood relationships in a community project is going
to be doomed to failure. Having said that, I am optimistic that focusing
on product excellence via a fun community of developers - particularly
in a market with a low marginal cost of migration will ultimately lead
to both success for LibreOffice, and a single united project again in
the long run.

        But - beyond this, I don't think any good purpose is solved in
discussing it acrimoniously and at length.

        All the best,

                Michael.

--
 [hidden email]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
> enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.

I disagree... competition implies a "winner" and a "loser"...
in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When
you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS
kinda gets overlooked.

The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 "competing" implementations
means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the
"competition" is most valid.

It's being complementary, not competitive.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

BRM BRM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

----- Original Message ----

> From: Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >      The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office  product (modulo
> > enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of  competition.
>
> I disagree... competition implies a "winner" and a  "loser"...
> in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When
> you  start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS
> kinda gets  overlooked.
>
> The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead  provide
> freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 "competing"  implementations
> means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those  freedoms
> and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then  the
> "competition" is most valid.
>
> It's being complementary, not  competitive.

Agreed. Otherwise the argument is therefore that TDF/LO is also competing with:

KOffice
Calligra
GNOME Office

And the many other FLOSS office products out there.

Ben


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >
> >       The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an office product (modulo
> > enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition.
>
> I disagree... competition implies a "winner" and a "loser"...
> in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When
> you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS
> kinda gets overlooked.
>
> The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
> freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 "competing" implementations
> means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
> and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the
> "competition" is most valid.
>
> It's being complementary, not competitive.
>

I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
doesn't make them ideal.

This is not like KOffice because that codebase is so different and missing
lots of features. No one is arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a
merge would be possible or makes sense.This is only about very slightly
different versions of a 10M line codebase.

Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want that
LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they wanted
6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even if you
had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the code
in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be LibreOffice
with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like that either.

-Keith

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Jim Jagielski Jim Jagielski
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice


On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Keith Curtis wrote:
>
> I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are
> bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that
> doesn't make them ideal.
>

I'm not sure about that... Some forks are good, some are
bad. It's the reasons that make them either good or bad,
but the forks themselves aren't. In fact, the ability to
fork is one of the great benefits of FOSS.

OT: but, of course, numerous forks, like the uncontrolled
    growth which is cancer, is bad for the community, imo.

Cheers!

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

BRM BRM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Keith Curtis
----- Original Message ----

> From: Keith Curtis <[hidden email]>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >  >       The overlap between TDF & ASF's goals for an  office product
(modulo

> > > enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty  compelling proof of competition.
> >
> > I disagree... competition  implies a "winner" and a "loser"...
> > in FOSS, how do you measure that?  Market Share? Feh. When
> > you start looking at it that way, then what  makes FOSS FOSS
> > kinda gets overlooked.
> >
> > The intent of  FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide
> > freedom and choices to  end-users. If having 2 "competing" implementations
> > means that a larger  set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms
> > and choices than if there was  only 1 implementation, then the
> > "competition" is most  valid.
> >
> > It's being complementary, not  competitive.
> >
>
> I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting  position that forks are
> bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes,  like war, but that
> doesn't make them ideal.

And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have been a
necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
revisionist history.

> This is not like KOffice  because that codebase is so different and missing
> lots of features. No one is  arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a
> merge would be possible or  makes sense.This is only about very slightly
> different versions of a 10M line  codebase.

No it is not. But KOffice does provide a very good example of this.

KOffice recently had a fork - Calligra - that most all of the development team
moved to as the KOffice proper was not being properly managed. Very similar to
to the OOo vs TDF/LO situation.

Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a much
healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with each
other either.
 
> Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want  that
> LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they  wanted
> 6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even  if you
> had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the  code
> in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be  LibreOffice
> with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like  that either.

The real question is - since TDF/LO is the real fork, what does LibreOffice want
that Oracle did not, and that Apache does not?
And that is primarily the LGPL+MPL.

Ben


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Keith Curtis Keith Curtis
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM <[hidden email]> wrote:

> And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
> been a
> necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
> revisionist history.
>

LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago.


>
> Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a
> much
> healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with
> each
> other either.
>


I didn't know the details of the Calligra fork but I did a bit of
researching. It seems like it was created because ONE person was causing
problems (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2010/12/rose-by-any-other-name.html) so
the rest moved. However, if everyone but one moves, it is not really a fork,
but a mutiny / change in leadership.

-Keith

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
drewjensen drewjensen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 08:46 -0700, Keith Curtis wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have
> > been a
> > necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is
> > revisionist history.
> >
>
> LO was a fork, but that was the for many months ago.

Yes and the transfer of OpenOffice.org to Apache is just that, a
transfer.

I'd add only one other comment - One doesn't have to like something in
order to accept or acknowledge it.

Best wishes,

Drew Jensen


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Document Foundation Mail Archives
Christian Lohmaier (klammer) Christian Lohmaier (klammer)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: The Document Foundation background

In reply to this post by Florian Effenberger
Hi *,

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Florian Effenberger
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Mark Wielaard wrote on 2011-06-15 14.34:
>>
>> And if possible please also add a "News from the TDF Blog" widget to the
>> frontpage like already on libreoffice.org. Then it would be immediately
>> clear that The Document Foundation is a lively and active entity.
>> Currently it takes some poking around from the homepage to finally end
>> up onhttp://blog.documentfoundation.org/  where all the latest news is.
>
> Cc'ing the website list, so they can jump in. :-)

Would need someone to adapt the stylesheet for the tdf-theme, but then
it's of course possible. But where on the site would you put it?
A mockup would greatly help.
Or do you suggest to also just put it below the current content like
it is one on www.libreoffice.org?

ciao
Christian

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

todd rme todd rme
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Keith Curtis
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Keith Curtis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 8:08 AM, BRM <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a
>> much
>> healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with
>> each
>> other either.
>>
>
>
> I didn't know the details of the Calligra fork but I did a bit of
> researching. It seems like it was created because ONE person was causing
> problems (http://aseigo.blogspot.com/2010/12/rose-by-any-other-name.html) so
> the rest moved. However, if everyone but one moves, it is not really a fork,
> but a mutiny / change in leadership.
>
> -Keith

It wasn't even that.  A mutiny or change in leadership would imply
that one person was the leader of KOffice, which he wasn't.  He was
just the maintainer of one part of the suite (the word processor).
But it was clear he was never going to be able to reconcile his
differences with the rest of the developers, so both sides decided to
split.  The reason for the name change is largely independent of the
split and more to do with the fact that they have a number of
non-office-related programs and the "office" name was turning users
off from those program.

-Todd

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Florian Effenberger Florian Effenberger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Jim Jagielski
Hi,

Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
> Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
> at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
> the content and they are responsible for the content on
> the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure
> at all.

so, how would you write things to be understandable much better? I'm
really curious to hear how the perception could be made better...
(seriously asking, not meant with bad intentions)

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Brouwer Simon Brouwer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

Op 18-6-2011 12:35, Florian Effenberger schreef:

> Hi,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
>> Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
>> at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
>> the content and they are responsible for the content on
>> the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure
>> at all.
>
> so, how would you write things to be understandable much better? I'm
> really curious to hear how the perception could be made better...
> (seriously asking, not meant with bad intentions)

Have a look at the first sentence on the homepage. It simply states that
TDF is a Foundation, while strictly spoken, it isn't (yet). The lack of
clear information about this on the website might lead outsiders to
suspect that TDF want to sweep some uncomfortable facts under the rug.
The word "Foundation" in this sentence could be made a web link to a
page that explains about the current situation and the progress towards
becoming an actual foundation. That way, things would become much
clearer. After the foundation is established, the link could point to
the Statutes and similar information.

--
Vriendelijke groet,
Simon Brouwer.

| http://nl.openoffice.org | http://www.opentaal.org |


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Simon Phipps Simon Phipps
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Florian Effenberger

On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
>> Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
>> at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
>> the content and they are responsible for the content on
>> the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure
>> at all.
>
> so, how would you write things to be understandable much better? I'm really curious to hear how the perception could be made better... (seriously asking, not meant with bad intentions

How about changing the text in the footer that reads:

> "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks. Their respective logos and icons are subject to international copyright laws. The use of these therefore is subject to our trademark policy.

to read:

The project names "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their host, [http://www.frodev.org Freies Office Deutschland e.V.], a non-profit organisation registered in Germany. The respective logos and icons used by these projects are also subject to international copyright laws. Use of any of them is subject to the [http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy trademark policy].

S.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

BRM BRM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

----- Original Message ----

> From: Simon Phipps <[hidden email]>
> On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote:
> > Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28:
> >> Maybe it's a  language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing
> >> at all to make it  clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote
> >> the content and they  are responsible for the content on
> >> the site. It says nothing at all  about the legal structure
> >> at all.
> >
> > so, how would you  write things to be understandable much better? I'm really
>curious to hear how  the perception could be made better... (seriously asking,
>not meant with bad  intentions
>
> How about changing the text in the footer that  reads:
>
> > "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered  trademarks. Their
>respective logos and icons are subject to international  copyright laws. The use
>of these therefore is subject to our trademark  policy.
>
> to read:
>
> The project names "LibreOffice" and "The Document  Foundation" are registered
>trademarks of their host, [http://www.frodev.org  Freies Office Deutschland
>e.V.], a non-profit organisation registered in  Germany. The respective logos
>and icons used by these projects are also subject  to international copyright
>laws. Use of any of them is subject to the  
>[http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy trademark  policy].
>

+1. I would have written something similar but you beat me to it ;-)

Ben


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Florian Effenberger Florian Effenberger
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

In reply to this post by Simon Brouwer
Hi Simon,

Simon Brouwer wrote on 2011-06-18 17.48:

> Have a look at the first sentence on the homepage. It simply states that
> TDF is a Foundation, while strictly spoken, it isn't (yet). The lack of
> clear information about this on the website might lead outsiders to
> suspect that TDF want to sweep some uncomfortable facts under the rug.
> The word "Foundation" in this sentence could be made a web link to a
> page that explains about the current situation and the progress towards
> becoming an actual foundation. That way, things would become much
> clearer. After the foundation is established, the link could point to
> the Statutes and similar information.

we do share a lot of the current status, e.g. in our blog, but I agree
that the wording might be misleading. I just forwarded the topic to the
steering-discuss list for feedback from the SC. Thanks for the pointer,
indeed.

Florian

--
Florian Effenberger <[hidden email]>
Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation
Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108
Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [hidden email]
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Next » 1 ... 34567 « Prev