On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote: > Hello, > >> From: Chris Maffey [mailto:ch...@maffey.com] > >> I have been distributing OO Cds since 2002, from my website >> http://openoffice.org.nz/. >> >> This is mostly an exercise in helping distribute OpenOffice, >> rather than a >> money maker. I sell the CDs for around $3.50 USD, and after >> all the CD >> printing, Package printing, CD Burning expenses there is no profit. >> >> I know this is not a huge contribution, however I have sold >> around 3,700 OO >> CDs in New Zealand over the last 10 years, which possibly >> helps in a little >> way. > > I think that's good, thank you for your work. > > But I think "profit" is something positive, because imho the statement of the > FSF > is correct: > > "Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price does not make the > free > software, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free > software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money . > Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity;. if you do > it, you > might as well make a profit from it " > > see: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html.en > > > For example, we have, in the past, the PrOOo-Box (professionally pressed DVD > plus > printed manual (150 pages) in a box) sold for 12 euros. > We used this money for the local work on OOo, for example, for fairs how the > LinuxTag (http://www.linuxtag.org/2013/en.html). > >
On the idea of reviving a CD/Distribution site, I'd like to review the reasons why we took it down originally: 1) The list was out of date. A quick check of the links showed that many were dead or did not actually go to pages that offered OpenOffice CD's. 2) As part of a non-profit foundation we need to be very careful how we relate to commercial entities. We can't be seen, for example, as giving special treatment to some commercial entities over others. And we need to be acting in accordance with the Foundations charitable mission. 3) We also need to watch out to ensure that our trademarks are not misused. 4) We have no practical way to ensure that CD distributors are offering current versions of OpenOffice, are virus free, etc. We see many examples of websites that claim to offer OpenOffice downloads but instead trick the user into downloading another application that installs malware on their machine. Our constant advice to users is to only download from a trusted source. How do we apply this advice with physical media? 5) Search engines are good enough today that a user can find a distributor without us getting involved. For example a Google search of 'buy openoffice cd new zealand" turns up the appropriate website at the top. But since the time we took that page down we've had more experience thinking these kinds of issues through. For example, we now have a consultants page: http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultants.html That page has a disclaimer: "The information provided here was provided by the entities named, and is not verified or endorsed by the Apache OpenOffice project. We offer this listing as a service to the ecosystem." And we have impartial listing criteria. We don't give preferential treatment to one company over another: http://www.openoffice.org/bizdev/consultant-submission.html The listings are fact-based and descriptive, not advertising. We also visit each website and verify that any use of ASF-owned trademarks is appropriate and correctly acknowledged. So I think we could develop a set of guidelines for CD listings, on a similar model to what we did with consultants. To make it lightweight I'd propose a set of guidelines that the distributors "self-certify" to. In other words, they agree to follow these guidelines as a condition of being listed. Things like: 1) Only appropriate, acknowledged use of trademarks 2) No implied affiliation with the OpenOffice project 3) Notice that the software can be downloaded for free from www.openoffice.org 4) Software offered is unmodified AOO. Hashcodes must match. (Of course, everyone has the right to modify AOO, but if we're linking to distributors from our download website, the presumption is for unmodified versions. If we want a separate list for sales of modified versions of AOO that should go on the ports and distributions page) 5) Versions offered must be either the current version of AOO or another version of AOO that was current within 90 days from the sale. In other words, we want to discourage distribution of old versions with security flaws. 6) Distributor should be signed up to our announcements mailing list, so they are promptly notified of new releases. 7) Distributor must not imply that support is included in the purchase price, unless they actually provide support. We've seen some websites charge for OpenOffice, say it includes support, and then point the user to the free community support forums. Now on any of these points, you might say, "But that is none of your concern what version I sell, whether I modify, what links I give, etc." This is true, to an extent. But when we add links to a 3rd party on our website we do so only for the benefit of our users, so it is reasonable for us to ask for such conditions. It would be a one-sided bargain if we just listed everyone with no conditions. Just food for thought. -Rob > > > Greetings, > Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
