Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:55:06AM +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Francois Tigeot wrote: > > There's a small typo at the beginning of the page: "Please carfeully read" > > > Thx, fixed. There's another problem with this form, possibly some sort of timeout. I've just submitted my application, but I couldn't do it without reloading the page first and pasting in all the answers I had previously entered manually. Trying to submit the first instance of the web form, I only got a blank page with the message "Security token doesn't match, possible CSRF attack." . It was not captcha-related. -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:50:37AM +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > > If there are no objections by tonight, I'll also change the text on > > the membership application page > > (http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/application-for-tdf-community-membership/) > > > Done. There's a small typo at the beginning of the page: "Please carfeully read" -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Hi Thorsten, On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 08:50:50PM +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Francois Tigeot wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what to do here; I believe the original thinkers behind the > > existing text did not take into account the reality of packaging and > > redistribution. > > hm, a few of the original thinkers are Linux distributors - and > what's wrong with the "NetBSD pkgsrc team" name? Oh, nothing really (almost). It's just that The Document Foundation sounded more pertinent. The almost part is because I'm not doing this work on NetBSD ;) > It's not that > the name LibreOffice is restrained in any substantial way, like the > Mozilla foundation did with FireFox ... Yah, the "LibreOffice pkgsrc team" may sound good :) -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Hi, On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 06:31:55PM +0200, André Schnabel wrote: > > Am 16.05.2011 17:58, schrieb Francois Tigeot: > >> > >>Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured > >>to receive your application as a TDF member. :) > >How can I do that ? And what does a membership entails ? > > What - see http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Membership > > How - fil in the form at > https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/application-for-tdf-community-membership/ Thanks André, will have a look. -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Hi Thorsten, all, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:44:55PM +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Francois Tigeot wrote: > > > In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of > > > the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the > > > final package containing your modifications). > > > > Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then. > > oh fun, since this is a real corner case - unless nobody distributes > binaries from your config, I guess keeping TDF as the vendor would > be fine (to make that 100% undisputable, you may want to commit that > file to our git repos, and use it as the authoritative source). The end result would be unmanageable; I will not use TDF as a vendor string. > Once NetBSD starts providing binary packages, things change - then > you should use the wording as Andre suggested below: > > > > Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" Yeah, I'll do that. The packages will not be limited to NetBSD either: pkgsrc runs on many common operating systems and every user is potentially able to create a package. > Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said - > LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve > the wording appreciated. ;) I'm not sure what to do here; I believe the original thinkers behind the existing text did not take into account the reality of packaging and redistribution. Maybe it should be best they revisit what they meant and what is actually written / possible in light of this situation first; I'm afraid it will lead to more misunderstanding if I just start to propose modifications to the text without having a good grasp of the issues behind it. > > Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work > > in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating > > system. > > > Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured > to receive your application as a TDF member. :) How can I do that ? And what does a membership entails ? -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Hi, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:24:19PM +0200, André Schnabel wrote: > > Am 12.05.2011 15:29, schrieb Francois Tigeot: > >... > >I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing > >packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished > >binary packages. > > In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of > the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the > final package containing your modifications). Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then. > Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or > less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a > different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest > some effort to bring the packages to their users. Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name ;-) The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this result. Since I wasn't sure about that, I also wanted to have some opinion from the LibreOffice side. > Ok, this is beyond my expertise. If it was possible to include all > what is neede in our build environment, so that anybody (any member > of TDF) could do exactly what you do - I'd agree, you use "The > Document Foundation" vendor string. I'm not sure of the prerequisites myself. > This would of likely mean some > work (integrating your modifications upstream, testing it, maybe > making it generic ...). But by doing all this you would qualify as > TDF member - and this would be agin for me be an indication to use > "The Document Foundation" vendor string. Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating system. There were many OpenOffice-specific patches in pkgsrc in the past, and they have been integrated in the LibreOffice tree by other people. So far, there is no modification to the source code of LibreOffice in my prototype packaging configuration. > Anyway - at this point I'd like to see the input of other SC-members > who have a better understanding what happens technically. Sure. It would be good to be sure what to do in this case. -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hi Andre, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:34:50PM +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: > > Von: Francois Tigeot > > > This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: [...] > > 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified > > form. > > Please note the wording "refer to the LibreOffice software". So this > chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of > the software. Hmm. This is a bit unclear. You mean the vendor would only be the packager, not The Document Foundation ? > There is another paragraph in the policy: > > > Non Permitted Use > > You may not use the marks in the following ways: > > > > 1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the > > origin of its software, or the software's license; > > So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware" > is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF". I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished binary packages. The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is, without any modification. There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's all. > Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but > it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark. Should I only use "LibreOffice" ? The wording on the about box would give this : This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates. Which will be a bit weird... > If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing > the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our > project framework. Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm What I've been doing so far is: - make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get them - add checksums for these files - define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt, etc...) - define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice - specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries, etc...) - tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions available on the developers web page. > So the way the vendors act are very different and > this should be reflected in the vendor string. What is a vendor and what is very different here ? This is sounding a bit lame, but nowhere did I see a clarification of the name "vendor", and what it should do or not. Kind Regards, -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hello, I'm a volunteer about to add some packaging scripts for LibreOffice in pkgsrc [1], and as such, I asked on the IRC developer's channel if there was a problem if I used "The Document Foundation" as a vendor string for the resulting packages. This is an extract of the exchanges I had on this channel: 11:30 < ftigeot> is there a policy on branding / the --with-vendor option ? 11:33 < ftigeot> would there be a problem if I use "The Document Foundation" in my packages ? 11:39 * ftigeot has just found http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy 11:40 < ftigeot> I will use The Document Foundation as vendor string 11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: ho hum; if you are not the document foundation - don't do that. 11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: I think that is the request of the branding guidelines. 11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: TDF is only for TDF produced builds; LibreOffice is for everyone. 11:46 < ftigeot> mmeeks: the webpage says "You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 11:46 < ftigeot> 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. " 11:47 < ftigeot> with a definition of "substantially unmodified" which says the way I intend to package it is basically okay This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into other languages, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the bundling of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions). The packaging scripts I am creating use the unmodified source code of LibreOffice and only change the default configuration options. According to the previously mentionned web page, the usage of "The Document Foundation" trademark is permitted in this case. According to Michael Meeks, it was not the intent of the Foundation to allow the usage of its brand in that case. Could this point be clarified ? If the usage of "The Document Foundation" trademark is not permitted for creating third-party packages, the information on the TradeMark_Policy webpage are contradictory. Thanks in advance for your answers [1] pkgsrc - http://www.pkgsrc.org/ - is a framework for building and packaging third-party software. It was originally created for NetBSD but is now supported on many systems, including Linux, MacOS X and Microsoft Windows (Interix) -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
