RAT scans: Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Pedro Giffuni]

Somewhat off-topic, ma non troppo ...

It would be good to tun a RAT scan over the website. We have not done anything 
to clean the content licensewise and we probably carry copyleft content, 
including code, there!

Pedro.

Re: Extension Site down?

[Andrea Pescetti]

Rob Weir wrote:

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote:

Is the Extension site down for maintenance or is there an other problem?

Be sure to copy Roberto on things like this.


As a temporary solution, I see that the site is actually online and 
working, but only reachable through the sf.net address: both

http://aoo-extensions.sourceforge.net
and
http://aoo-templates.sourceforge.net
work normally (as RGB noted, templates.openoffice.org is unavailable too).

Regards,
  Andrea.

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Juergen Schmidt]

Am Dienstag, 22. Januar 2013 um 04:41 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>  
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>  
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher  
> > > wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher 
> > > > > >  wrote:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a 
> > > > > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > thread on the legal-discuss list:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software 
> > > > > > > > Grant
> > > > > > > > Agreement. Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but 
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > does offer its own copyright and patent license.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > The license portion in question was this:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
> > > > > > > > of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> > > > > > > > recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a 
> > > > > > > > perpetual,
> > > > > > > > worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
> > > > > > > > copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
> > > > > > > > publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
> > > > > > > > Your Contributions and such derivative works."
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > The question was: What does "software distributed by the 
> > > > > > > > Foundation"
> > > > > > > > mean? Does that mean only releases? Code in SVN? What exactly?
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in 
> > > > > > > > SVN is
> > > > > > > > considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of 
> > > > > > > > the SGA
> > > > > > > > applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into 
> > > > > > > > Subversion.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
> > > > > > > > "general public". It distributes to our self-selected 
> > > > > > > > development
> > > > > > > > teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code 
> > > > > > > > being
> > > > > > > > distributed.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a 
> > > > > > > > release."
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
> > > > > > > > Subversion a couple of days ago:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > I don't think this is anything new. We already know that code 
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
> > > > > > > > headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc. That is part of what it 
> > > > > > > > means
> > > > > > > > to publish a release at Apache. But we have other stuff in 
> > > > > > > > Subversion
> > > > > > > > that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we 
> > > > > > > > do not
> > > > > > > > make this effort. For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and 
> > > > > > > > /symphony.
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > Agreed this follows the policy here: 
> > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > One subtle point here is the following:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included 
> > > > > > > in it, the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
> > > > > > > • remove such notices, or
> > > > > > > • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
> > > > > > > project release, or
> > > > > > > • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
> > > > > > > relocation of the notices."
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > The SGA does not give those rights.
> > > >  
> > > > Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of 
> > > > committer on this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to 
> > > > be eliminated / minimized.
> > > >  
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
> > > > > > is the section tha

Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)

[Dave Fisher]

On Jan 21, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
>> 
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page: 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>> 
>> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>> 
>> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>> 
>> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
>> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
>> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
>> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.

We tried to preserve all the web content at www.openoffice.org.

Here are some links:

http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/
http://www.openoffice.org/about/
http://www.openoffice.org/awards/index.html
http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/testimonials.html

Regards,
Dave

>> 
>> 
>> - d.
> 
> 
> David,
> Extensive records of OOo since its inception in 2000 exist. My own
> understanding is that the milestones are still obvious. I have personal
> accounts, but these would need to be validated by public citation.
> 
> The generally useful milestone pages may still, too, be available via
> the Internet Archive, of
> course; but that goes without saying--?
> louis
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> Take a look at the lovely new page:  
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>> 
>> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>> 
>> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>> 
>> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
>> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
>> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
>> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>> 
>> 
>> - d.
> 
> -- 
> Louis Suárez-Potts, PhD
> Age of Peers, Inc.
> Twitter: @luispo
> Skype: louisiam
> GMail: lui...@gmail.com
> Mobile: +1.416.625.3843
> 

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Dave Fisher]

On Jan 21, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 
 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher  
> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> 
>>> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
>>> thread on the legal-discuss list:
>>> 
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>> 
>>> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>> 
>>> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
>>> Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
>>> does offer its own copyright and patent license.
>>> 
>>> The license portion in question was this:
>>> 
>>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
>>>of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>>>recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
>>>worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
>>>copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
>>>publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
>>>Your Contributions and such derivative works."
>>> 
>>> The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
>>> mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
>>> 
>>> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
>>> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
>>> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
>>> 
>>> But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
>>> 
>>> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
>>> "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
>>> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
>>> distributed.
>>> 
>>> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
>>> 
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>> 
>>> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
>>> Subversion a couple of days ago:
>>> 
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
>>> 
>>> I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
>>> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
>>> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
>>> to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
>>> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
>>> make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.
>> 
>> Agreed this follows the policy here: 
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>> 
>> One subtle point here is the following:
>> 
>> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, 
>> the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
>>   • remove such notices, or
>>   • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
>> project release, or
>>   • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
>> relocation of the notices."
>> 
>> The SGA does not give those rights.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer 
>>> on this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated 
>>> / minimized.
>>> 
> 
> And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
> is the section that says:
> 
> "When must Apache projects comply with this policy?
> 
> All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must
> comply with this policy."
> 
> The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in
> any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable.
>>> 
>>> I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the 
>>> ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be 
>>> done.
>>> 
> 
>> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone 
>> from the project can make these changes as they move the files. But 
>> unless this is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA 
>> to do it. That is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be 
>> constrained from doing this until this matter is cleared up.
>> 
> 
> That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have s

Re: fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Andrew Douglas Pitonyak]

On 01/21/2013 07:05 PM, Stan Helton wrote:
On the other hand, this one seems a bit overpriced ($4.95): 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEWEST-APACHE-OPEN-OFFICE-3-4-MASTER-INSTALL-DVD-LINUX-MAC-WINDOWS-BONUS-CD-/370639582458


Just posting a sale to ebay costs money. So, I figure they have the cost 
of posting to ebay, the commission that ebay takes on the sale, and then 
there are the costs to produce and mail. I assume that a regular CD, 
postage, and the disc mailer probably cost around $1 or a bit more. If 
ebay ends up with $2 to $3, that does not leave a bunch of profit. Kudos 
for a lower price for those that do not have an internet connection (but 
then why would they be on ebay).


--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php

Re: OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

David Gerard wrote:
>
> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>>
>> Take a look at the lovely new page: 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>> Some choice bits of distortion:
>
>
>
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
>
> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
>
> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
>
> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
>
>
> - d.


David,
Extensive records of OOo since its inception in 2000 exist. My own
understanding is that the milestones are still obvious. I have personal
accounts, but these would need to be validated by public citation.

The generally useful milestone pages may still, too, be available via
the Internet Archive, of
course; but that goes without saying--?
louis
 David Gerard wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
> 
>> Take a look at the lovely new page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>> Some choice bits of distortion:
> 
> 
> Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.
> 
> Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
> 
> Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!
> 
> Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
> Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
> as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
> clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.
> 
> 
> - d.

-- 
Louis Suárez-Potts, PhD
Age of Peers, Inc.
Twitter: @luispo
Skype: louisiam
GMail: lui...@gmail.com
Mobile: +1.416.625.3843

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
 On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
>> thread on the legal-discuss list:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>
>> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>
>> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
>> Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
>> does offer its own copyright and patent license.
>>
>> The license portion in question was this:
>>
>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
>> of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
>> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
>> copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
>> publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
>> Your Contributions and such derivative works."
>>
>> The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
>> mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
>>
>> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
>> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
>> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
>>
>> But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
>>
>> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
>> "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
>> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
>> distributed.
>>
>> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>
>> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
>> Subversion a couple of days ago:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
>>
>> I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
>> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
>> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
>> to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
>> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
>> make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.
>
> Agreed this follows the policy here: 
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> One subtle point here is the following:
>
> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, 
> the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
>• remove such notices, or
>• move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
> project release, or
>• provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
> relocation of the notices."
>
> The SGA does not give those rights.
>
>>
>> Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer on 
>> this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated / 
>> minimized.
>>

 And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
 is the section that says:

 "When must Apache projects comply with this policy?

 All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must
 comply with this policy."

 The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in
 any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable.
>>
>> I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the 
>> ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be 
>> done.
>>

> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from 
> the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless 
> this is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. 
> That is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from 
> doing this until this matter is cleared up.
>

 That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward
 to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk.

>>>
>>> And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able
>>> to confirm that the SGA te

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

 On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
> thread on the legal-discuss list:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>
> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>
> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
> Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
> does offer its own copyright and patent license.
>
> The license portion in question was this:
>
> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
> of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
> recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
> worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
> copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
> publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
> Your Contributions and such derivative works."
>
> The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
> mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
>
> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
>
> But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
>
> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
> "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
> distributed.
>
> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>
> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
> Subversion a couple of days ago:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
>
> I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
> to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
> make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.

 Agreed this follows the policy here: 
 http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

 One subtle point here is the following:

 "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, 
 the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
• remove such notices, or
• move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
 project release, or
• provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
 relocation of the notices."

 The SGA does not give those rights.

>
> Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer on 
> this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated / 
> minimized.
>
>>>
>>> And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
>>> is the section that says:
>>>
>>> "When must Apache projects comply with this policy?
>>>
>>> All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must
>>> comply with this policy."
>>>
>>> The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in
>>> any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable.
>
> I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the 
> ASF. But because something is not required does not mean it should not be 
> done.
>
>>>
 If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from 
 the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this 
 is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That 
 is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing 
 this until this matter is cleared up.

>>>
>>> That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward
>>> to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk.
>>>
>>
>> And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able
>> to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the
>> code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are)
>> then they can go ahead and help merge it and 

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Dave Fisher]

On Jan 21, 2013, at 5:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> 
 Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
 thread on the legal-discuss list:
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
 
 If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
 
 http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
 
 As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
 Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
 does offer its own copyright and patent license.
 
 The license portion in question was this:
 
 "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
 of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
 recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
 worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
 copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
 publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
 Your Contributions and such derivative works."
 
 The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
 mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
 
 As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
 considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
 applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
 
 But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
 
 "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
 "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
 teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
 distributed.
 
 When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
 
 http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
 
 That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
 Subversion a couple of days ago:
 
 https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
 
 I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
 we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
 headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
 to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
 that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
 make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.
>>> 
>>> Agreed this follows the policy here: 
>>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>> 
>>> One subtle point here is the following:
>>> 
>>> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, 
>>> the copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
>>>• remove such notices, or
>>>• move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
>>> project release, or
>>>• provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
>>> relocation of the notices."
>>> 
>>> The SGA does not give those rights.
>>> 

Until we address this subtle distinction we have two classes of committer on 
this project. IBMers and others. This distinction needs to be eliminated / 
minimized.

>> 
>> And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
>> is the section that says:
>> 
>> "When must Apache projects comply with this policy?
>> 
>> All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must
>> comply with this policy."
>> 
>> The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in
>> any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable.

I did not miss that at all. You are correct that it is not required by the ASF. 
But because something is not required does not mean it should not be done.

>> 
>>> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from 
>>> the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this 
>>> is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That 
>>> is the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing 
>>> this until this matter is cleared up.
>>> 
>> 
>> That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward
>> to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk.
>> 
> 
> And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able
> to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the
> code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are)
> then they can go ahead and help merge it and ignore the header cleanup
> question.

Let's do this. Should any project contributor wish to work on a portion of this 
code someone from IBM w

Idea for distributing AOO on CD's

[Rob Weir]

Just an idea.  There are many out there who want AOO on CD, but cannot
download it.  And there are some selling AOO or OOo, but not always
the latest versions.  And we have no ability as a project to create
and mail CD's.

So one thing that any individual or group of individuals could do,
that would provide a public benefit:

1) Start with some minimal seed money, like $100

2) Purchase CD media, mailers, postage

3) Set up website

4) Offer to send out free CD's of AOO to whoever wants one.  No
charge, not even for postage.

5) But accept optional donations via a button on the website.

6) Be transparent about the costs of operating this service and the
donations received.

7) Comply with all trademark requirements, seek permission to use logo
and maybe a distinctive URL/domain name

8) I am not a tax lawyer, but if I were doing this in the US, I would
not register as a non-profit (too much paperwork), but simply aim to
not make any profit.  For example, if donations ran ahead of orders,
I'd remove the donation button from the website.  End each year with a
small loss (ideally 1 dollar), so no business tax concerns.

9) Would be easy within a country to have multiple people doing this
together.  Not sure how to do it internationally.

Would something like this work?

-Rob

Re: Re: Re: Re: build problem

[Fan Zheng]

Welcome!

2013/1/21 2 

> Fan Zheng，
>  I'm so sorry for missing your reply because of my job. I have
> finished the building with your help.
> Thank you!
>
> Yi
> At 2013-01-11 15:07:44,"Fan Zheng"  wrote:
> >Seems your cygwin did not to be allow to use system api to create process.
> >Did you use some kind of anti-virus application like Symantec EndPoint
> >Protection? If yes, you may need to install a newly version with certain
> >verification for cygwin.
> >
> >BTW, the method you executed last one "make -sr" will give a release build
> >without the debug information. try "make -sr debug=true" please.
> >
> >
> >2013/1/10 2 
> >
> >> After my step 2, I go to sw and run "build debug=true", but it didn'i
> >> work. I got the message:
> >>  >/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/sw
> >> >$ build debug=true
> >> cygwin warning:
> >>   MS-DOS style path detected: D:/aoo/main/solenv/bin/build.pl
> >>   Preferred POSIX equivalent is: /cygdrive/d/aoo/main/solenv/bin/
> build.pl
> >>   CYGWIN environment variable option "nodosfilewarning" turns off this
> >> warning.
> >>   Consult the user's guide for more details about POSIX paths:
> >> http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#using-pathnames
> >> build -- version: 275224
> >> This module has been migrated to GNU make.
> >> You can only use build --all/--since here with build.pl.
> >> To do the equivalent of 'build && deliver' call:
> >> make -sr
> >> in the module root (This will modify the solver).
> >>
> >> >/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/sw
> >> >$ make -sr
> >>   2 [main] sh 2720 fork: child -1 - CreateProcessW failed for
> >> 'C:\cygwin\bin\sh.exe', errno 13
> >> /bin/sh: fork: Permission denied
> >> D:/aoo/main/solenv/gbuild/AllLangResTarget.mk:91: recipe for target
> >> `/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/solver/341/
> >> wntmsci12.pro/workdir/Dep/SrsPartTarget/sw/source/ui/index/idxmrk.src.d
> '
> >> failed
> >> make: *** [/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/solver/341/
> >> wntmsci12.pro/workdir/Dep/SrsPartTarget/sw/source/ui/index/idxmrk.src.d
> ]
> >> Error 254
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 2013-01-10 11:07:51,chengjh  wrote:
> >> >I am not sure your step 4,5,6...After your step 2, you can go to sw
> module
> >> >and run "build debug=true" to do individual build with debug info once
> you
> >> >have done modifications in sw module,and then you will find
> >> >that breakpoints can be added to your modified files after the new
> built
> >> >dlls at ..\main\solver\350\wntmsci12.pro\workdir\LinkTarget\Library
> are
> >> >copied and pasted to your installation directory,such as
> >> >D:\OO34\Basis\program\...
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, 2  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> I have found the dlls in solver folder, but I was another
> >> problem,
> >> >> when build sw with debug information, but I couldn't found the dlls
> with
> >> >> debug infomation, where are them?
> >> >> there are the command I input in cygwin:
> >> >> 1.cd main
> >> >> 2.source winenv.Set.sh
> >> >> 4.cd instsetoo_native
> >> >> 5.build --from sw --prepare # removes old output trees and solver
> >> >> 6.build debug=true --from sw
> >> >>
> >> >> Yi
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> At 2013-01-09 16:32:46,chengjh  wrote:
> >> >> >Sure,the compiled object files can be found at ..\main\solver\350\
> >> >> >wntmsci12.pro\workdir\CxxObject\sw\.,and dlls can be got
> >> >> >from ..\main\solver\350\wntmsci12.pro
> >> \workdir\LinkTarget\Library..Thanks.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Herbert Duerr 
> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 09.01.2013 08:06, 2 wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>  when got my own build, I couldn't found the filefolder
> >> >> wntmsci12.proin sw module which be found in sc module, could it be
> said
> >> >> that my build
> >> >> >>> failed ?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That is no problem: The sw module has been converted to gbuild, so
> >> that
> >> >> >> the files are now in main/solver/350/wntmsci12.pro instead of the
> >> >> modules
> >> >> >> wntmsci12.pro folder.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Herbert
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >
> >> >Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
> >>
>

Re: CD's available?

[Fan Zheng]

2013/1/22 Rob Weir 

> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM,   wrote:
> >
> > We have limited internet access and wonder if the programs are still
> available on CD.
> >
>
> Hi Carol,
>
> What country are you in?
>

Let me guess, he/she maybe in North America,  for the person is using the
email box from AOL.

>
> -Rob
>
>
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Carol Conkey
>

Re: fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Fan Zheng]

I have visit the link just now. And as I considered, many many positive
feedbacks, but with no bidding:)

personally I would thank the person who selling the AOO on EBAY, which give
an opertunity for us on promotion.

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>>> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
>>> thread on the legal-discuss list:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>>
>>> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>>
>>> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
>>> Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
>>> does offer its own copyright and patent license.
>>>
>>> The license portion in question was this:
>>>
>>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
>>>  of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>>>  recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
>>>  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
>>>  copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
>>>  publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
>>>  Your Contributions and such derivative works."
>>>
>>> The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
>>> mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
>>>
>>> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
>>> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
>>> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
>>>
>>> But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
>>>
>>> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
>>> "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
>>> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
>>> distributed.
>>>
>>> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>>
>>> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
>>> Subversion a couple of days ago:
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
>>>
>>> I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
>>> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
>>> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
>>> to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
>>> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
>>> make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.
>>
>> Agreed this follows the policy here: 
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>>
>> One subtle point here is the following:
>>
>> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the 
>> copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
>> • remove such notices, or
>> • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
>> project release, or
>> • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
>> relocation of the notices."
>>
>> The SGA does not give those rights.
>>
>
> And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
> is the section that says:
>
> "When must Apache projects comply with this policy?
>
> All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must
> comply with this policy."
>
> The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in
> any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable.
>
>> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from 
>> the project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this 
>> is so it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That is 
>> the hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing this 
>> until this matter is cleared up.
>>
>
> That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward
> to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk.
>

And just in the spirit of brainstorming, if a project member is able
to confirm that the SGA terms are sufficient for them to work with the
code (and I think any reasonable reading would show that they are)
then they can go ahead and help merge it and ignore the header cleanup
question.

But before we release AOO 4.0 we'll of course run a RAT scan and that
will identify any issue.  And so no one need worry about this further,
I volunteer to fix any header inconsistencies that show up there
before we release.

OK?

-Rob

> -Rob
>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
>> thread on the legal-discuss list:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>
>> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
>>
>> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
>> Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
>> does offer its own copyright and patent license.
>>
>> The license portion in question was this:
>>
>> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
>>  of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>>  recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
>>  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
>>  copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
>>  publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
>>  Your Contributions and such derivative works."
>>
>> The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
>> mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
>>
>> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
>> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
>> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
>>
>> But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
>>
>> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
>> "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
>> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
>> distributed.
>>
>> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
>>
>> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
>> Subversion a couple of days ago:
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
>>
>> I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
>> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
>> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
>> to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
>> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
>> make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.
>
> Agreed this follows the policy here: 
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
>
> One subtle point here is the following:
>
> "If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the 
> copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
> • remove such notices, or
> • move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable 
> project release, or
> • provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
> relocation of the notices."
>
> The SGA does not give those rights.
>

And perhaps a more subtle point (you seemed to miss it, for example)
is the section that says:

"When must Apache projects comply with this policy?

All releases created and distributed after November 1, 2006 must
comply with this policy."

The source in the /symphony directory is not planned to be included in
any release, so I don't see this policy as applicable.

> If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from the 
> project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this is so 
> it is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That is the 
> hang up as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing this 
> until this matter is cleared up.
>

That is a hypothetical issue, since no developers have stepped forward
to volunteer merging these files into the AOO 4.0 trunk.

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Dave Fisher]

On Jan 21, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
> thread on the legal-discuss list:
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
> 
> If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt
> 
> As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
> Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
> does offer its own copyright and patent license.
> 
> The license portion in question was this:
> 
> "Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
>  of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
>  recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
>  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
>  copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
>  publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
>  Your Contributions and such derivative works."
> 
> The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
> mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?
> 
> As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
> considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
> applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.
> 
> But note also Roy's later clarifying response:
> 
> "The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
> "general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
> teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
> distributed.
> 
> When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser
> 
> That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
> Subversion a couple of days ago:
> 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER
> 
> I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
> we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
> headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
> to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
> that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
> make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.

Agreed this follows the policy here: 
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html

One subtle point here is the following:

"If the source file is submitted with a copyright notice included in it, the 
copyright owner (or owner's agent) must either:
• remove such notices, or
• move them to the NOTICE file associated with each applicable project 
release, or
• provide written permission for the ASF to make such removal or 
relocation of the notices."

The SGA does not give those rights.

If IBM will or has granted the ASF these specific rights then anyone from the 
project can make these changes as they move the files. But unless this is so it 
is only safe for an IBM employee listed on a CCLA to do it. That is the hang up 
as non-IBM project committers may be constrained from doing this until this 
matter is cleared up.

Regards,
Dave

Re: fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Steve Hawkins Sr]

sounds like a deal to me...  5 including shipping is not worth my time

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Stan Helton  wrote:

> I'm unfamiliar with UK postage rates, but 99 cents seems within reason for
> a CD/DVD.  On the other hand, this one seems a bit overpriced ($4.95):
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/**NEWEST-APACHE-OPEN-OFFICE-3-4-**
> MASTER-INSTALL-DVD-LINUX-MAC-**WINDOWS-BONUS-CD-/370639582458
>
> FYI -- At today's exchange rates the US CD is twice the price of the UK CD.
>
>
> On 1/21/2013 5:47 PM, Steve Hawkins Sr wrote:
>
>> my understanding is that it is legal to sell open source software if the
>> charge is for shipping and handling and a small fee for
>> duplicating
>>   as u can tell the fee is VERY small
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jem Brand  wrote:
>>
>>  someone selling yr software on ebay
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/**Office-2003-Office-2007-**
>>> Office-2010-Fully-Microsoft-**Compatible-/190785564791?pt=**
>>> UK_Computing_Other_Computing_**Networking&hash=item2c6bb4b077
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Courtesy is the grease that keeps the wheels of civilization turning.
> Robert Heinlein
>



-- 
Please excuse any misspells or punctuation errors.  Thanks
Steve M Hawkins Sr Tech Consultant
431 Supply / A1A Services Inc
404 Highway 431 South
404 Martin Luther King Pkwy
Phenix City, AL 36869
s...@431supply.com
www.431supply.com
706-478-9524 fax
334-291-1812 voice

Re: fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Stan Helton  wrote:
> I'm unfamiliar with UK postage rates, but 99 cents seems within reason for a
> CD/DVD.  On the other hand, this one seems a bit overpriced ($4.95):
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEWEST-APACHE-OPEN-OFFICE-3-4-MASTER-INSTALL-DVD-LINUX-MAC-WINDOWS-BONUS-CD-/370639582458
>
> FYI -- At today's exchange rates the US CD is twice the price of the UK CD.
>

The Apache License does not put any price restriction on distribution.
 You can give it away for free, or sell it for 1 million dollars, if
you can find a buyer.  Of course, for something freely available for
download, competition will tend drive the price down to a small
increment for the media, shipping and convenience.

-Rob

>
>
> On 1/21/2013 5:47 PM, Steve Hawkins Sr wrote:
>>
>> my understanding is that it is legal to sell open source software if the
>> charge is for shipping and handling and a small fee for
>> duplicating
>>   as u can tell the fee is VERY small
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jem Brand  wrote:
>>
>>> someone selling yr software on ebay
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Office-2003-Office-2007-Office-2010-Fully-Microsoft-Compatible-/190785564791?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item2c6bb4b077
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Courtesy is the grease that keeps the wheels of civilization turning. Robert
> Heinlein

Re: Extension Site down?

[Rob Weir]

Be sure to copy Roberto on things like this.

-Rob


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Raphael Bircher  wrote:
> Hi at all
>
> Is the Extension site down for maintenance or is there an other problem?
>
> Greetings Raphael

Re: fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Stan Helton]

I'm unfamiliar with UK postage rates, but 99 cents seems within reason 
for a CD/DVD.  On the other hand, this one seems a bit overpriced 
($4.95): 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEWEST-APACHE-OPEN-OFFICE-3-4-MASTER-INSTALL-DVD-LINUX-MAC-WINDOWS-BONUS-CD-/370639582458


FYI -- At today's exchange rates the US CD is twice the price of the UK CD.


On 1/21/2013 5:47 PM, Steve Hawkins Sr wrote:

my understanding is that it is legal to sell open source software if the
charge is for shipping and handling and a small fee for duplicating
  as u can tell the fee is VERY small

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jem Brand  wrote:


someone selling yr software on ebay

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Office-2003-Office-2007-Office-2010-Fully-Microsoft-Compatible-/190785564791?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item2c6bb4b077









--
Courtesy is the grease that keeps the wheels of civilization turning. 
Robert Heinlein

Re: fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Steve Hawkins Sr]

my understanding is that it is legal to sell open source software if the
charge is for shipping and handling and a small fee for duplicating
 as u can tell the fee is VERY small

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jem Brand  wrote:

>
> someone selling yr software on ebay
>
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Office-2003-Office-2007-Office-2010-Fully-Microsoft-Compatible-/190785564791?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item2c6bb4b077
>
>
>




-- 
Please excuse any misspells or punctuation errors.  Thanks
Steve M Hawkins Sr Tech Consultant
431 Supply / A1A Services Inc
404 Highway 431 South
404 Martin Luther King Pkwy
Phenix City, AL 36869
s...@431supply.com
www.431supply.com
706-478-9524 fax
334-291-1812 voice

Re: What rights are given in an SGA

[Kay Schenk]

On 01/21/2013 10:59 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
thread on the legal-discuss list:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser

If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
does offer its own copyright and patent license.

The license portion in question was this:

"Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
   of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
   recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
   worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
   copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
   publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
   Your Contributions and such derivative works."

The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?

As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.

But note also Roy's later clarifying response:

"The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
"general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
distributed.

When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser

That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
Subversion a couple of days ago:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER

I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.

Regards,

-Rob



Thanks for posting this. I think it does clarify some 
issues/conversations of late.




--

MzK

"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
 -- Aesop

Extension Site down?

[Raphael Bircher]

Hi at all

Is the Extension site down for maintenance or is there an other problem?

Greetings Raphael

Re: CD's available?

[Rob Weir]

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM,   wrote:
>
> We have limited internet access and wonder if the programs are still 
> available on CD.
>

Hi Carol,

What country are you in?

-Rob


> Thank you.
>
> Carol Conkey

Re: CD's available?

[Kay Schenk]

@Steve, Saransh

Carol's message was moderated, as s/he is not a list member. Please 
contact Carol directly if you wish.


On 01/19/2013 10:32 PM, Steve Hawkins Sr wrote:

which programs...  i could burn some for you for just my time and
material..  which is legal for open office as long as i dont
make any changes.

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:38 PM,  wrote:



We have limited internet access and wonder if the programs are still
available on CD.

Thank you.

Carol Conkey







--

MzK

"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
 -- Aesop

Re: CD's available?

[Kay Schenk]

On 01/19/2013 06:38 PM, carole...@aol.com wrote:


We have limited internet access and wonder if the programs are still available 
on CD.

Thank you.

Carol Conkey



Hi Carol --

Apache OpenOffice 3.4.x is not available directly from the project on 
CD. However, if you use your favorite internet search mechanism, you may 
be able to find an independent seller. Please be advised that Apache 
OpenOffice is not affiliated with any such seller you may find.

It is safest to download directly from our site:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/


I will leave your message on this list in case one of our volunteers can 
contact you about this.

--

MzK

"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
 -- Aesop

[www] How do I create wikibooks programmatically?

[Stuart]

Hello group,

I found the following page: 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/FirstSteps/First_Steps


According to the Discussion section of this site, it should be possible 
to let MediaWiki create a new book by clicking "Load this book as your 
current book" in the toolbar on the left. However, there is no such 
entry in the toolbar (the posting in the Diskussion section is from 
2010, so things may have changed since then). The authors intent was 
that a new book should be created using the most recent information from 
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Collections/Developer%27s_Guide_-_First_Steps


Can anybody give me a hint how that can be accomplished?
Thanks,
Stuart

fyi don't know if yr aware of this

[Jem Brand]

someone selling yr software on ebay
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Office-2003-Office-2007-Office-2010-Fully-Microsoft-Compatible-/190785564791?pt=UK_Computing_Other_Computing_Networking&hash=item2c6bb4b077


  

OpenOffice on Wikipedia (was: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays)

[David Gerard]

Rob Weir wrote:

>Take a look at the lovely new page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice
>Some choice bits of distortion:


Thanks for publicising this. I really did mean I wanted more eyes on it.

Useful pages in dealing with contentious topics (which is everything):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Cheers, looking forward to help. The talk page welcomes you!

Anyone with a good clippings file for the history of OO from 2000?
Such a history, that gets across *why* OO is as historically important
as it is, is not yet written, as far as I know. I went through the OO
clippings pages and archive.org but didn't find a lot.


- d.

Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
> Don
> Thanks
> Inline...
>
>
> Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>> object to an article or a piece thereof.  This comes out largely as
>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
>> argument.
>>
>> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>>
>> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
>> matter.  Whether offering a competing product and being personally
>> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
>> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>>
>> Regarding opinionated content:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>>
>> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
>> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles.  As others have
>> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
>> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
>> value judgments aren't facts.  At best, one can say that such-and-such
>> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
>> judgments.
>>
>> Just above that is
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>>
>> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>>
>> Regarding it getting ugly:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>>
>> AKA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>>
>> Regarding dispute resolution:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>>
>> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
>> that should be tried first.  Arbitration is apparently meant for
>> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
>> of the article.
>>
>> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>>
>> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
>> for resolving the situation.  The article can be tagged as being part
>> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard.  The
>> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
>> be the very last resort.
>>
>> Don
>
> Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
> of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
> statements seem to have been.
>
> But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
> persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
> their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
> be something other.
>

Isn't one of their slogans, "Be bold"?   IMHO, it could use a total rewrite.

The current version can't decide whether it is writing about the
product or the project, and seems to want to tell the history of the
world from the Great Flood for every section.  Much more useful for
the typical reader would be a section describing OpenOffice, the
product, in its current version, followed by a description of the
current project, then a section on history, broken into sections, of
"StarDivision",  "Sun Stewardship", "Oracle Strewardship" and "Apache
Project".  Or do it by release.  You can either tell a project history
or a technical/product history in any given section, but trying to do
both at once is a disaster, as the current version demonstrates.

-Rob

> louis

Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays

[Louis Suárez-Potts]

Don
Thanks
Inline...


Donald Whytock wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof.  This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
> 
> Regarding conflicts of interest:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
> 
> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
> matter.  Whether offering a competing product and being personally
> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
> 
> Regarding opinionated content:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
> 
> AKA
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
> 
> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles.  As others have
> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
> value judgments aren't facts.  At best, one can say that such-and-such
> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
> judgments.
> 
> Just above that is
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
> 
> AKA
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
> 
> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
> 
> Regarding it getting ugly:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
> 
> AKA
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
> 
> Regarding dispute resolution:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
> 
> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
> that should be tried first.  Arbitration is apparently meant for
> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
> of the article.
> 
> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
> 
> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
> for resolving the situation.  The article can be tagged as being part
> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard.  The
> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
> be the very last resort.
> 
> Don

Thanks Don. I was but you were not, and I wish that Gerard were as aware
of the importance of neutrality as you and the writers of these policy
statements seem to have been.

But out of a fair amount of personal experience with Wikipedia, my
persistent impression is that unless the affected parties fix things on
their own, the copy stays there, as if it were truth itself, though it
be something other.

louis

Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

[janI]

On 21 January 2013 20:10, Rob Weir  wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, janI  wrote:
> > On 21 January 2013 19:36, Rob Weir  wrote:
> >
> >> I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post
> >> along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"?
> >>
> >> I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for
> >> developers, etc.  But we are also commercially friendly, and our
> >> permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports
> >> this.  One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage
> >> commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in
> >> the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community.
> >> Yes, some will take and never give back.  But for many commercial
> >> ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community,
> >> having credibility and commit privileges, etc.  So it s a win-win, I
> >> think.
> >>
> >> The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize
> >> the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc.
> >>
> >> If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog,
> >> of course.  But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to
> >> put it here.
> >>
> >
> > For me it would depend a lot on the wording. It is a fact that
> > people/companies make money of our non-paid work, but to me it is another
> > level to actively promote it.
> >
> > The right place to put it, is as you write the AOO blog and The business
> > models should be presented in a way that (if for nothing else, then pure
> > morally) part of the earnings should flow back to AOO, in order to keep
> us
> > going,
> >
>
> Yes, that would be my intent.
>
> > I do not really see it as win-win, when a company makes money and has
> > commit rights. I (as many others) have commit rights and do not earn
> money,
> > we do it for other reasons.
> >
>
> Maybe this question deserves its own thread, but what would increase
> your enjoyment/satisfaction with volunteer with AOO?
>
good question, it is easier to say what would demotivate, and that is when
I put in a lot work to help end-users, and the community actively
encourages others to make money on it.

See later "eco system".

If seeing the project advance faster, seeing more stuff getting done,
> fewer things left undone, then this is made easier with more
> investment into the ecosystem.  And that becomes a virtuous cycle,
> since that success attracts more volunteers, which leads to further
> success.
>

Well that depends, I am sure that e.g. IBM (just an example) could throw in
a lot of man power, and we could move high speed, but the price would be to
de facto work to IBM rules, and that is a situation we should avoid.

I believe that one of the reasons for AOO success is difference between the
people involved, which enforces discussions and compromisses...something
you easily loose when money is involved.

To me is essential that the eco system is primarely kept intact by "real"
volunteers...and that paid volunteers (sorry could not find a better
expression), which have more time and resources are not taking over. Just
to be completely clear, this statement is meant as a general rule, and in
not to point at you or all other paid people in AOO, who all do a great job.

>
> > This is of course just my opinion which in one sentence is
> > "good initative, but feeling comfortable depends a lot on content of the
> > business models"
> >
>
> Well, I haven't written in yet, but I was thinking of a listing or
> catalog of ways of making money from OpenOffice.  Maybe 10 or so.  So
> not "get rich quick" stuff, and generally a pitch for involvement by
> for-profit organizations.
>

I like your idea, and a catalogue of ideas is good...but think about giving
it the twist of a danish expression "when it rains on the priest, it drips
on the vicar".


>
> -Rob
>
> > Jan I.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> No rush to decide. I won't get to this for another week, at least.
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
>

Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> +1 although I don't know what MS Office 2003 end-of-life has to do with it, 
> particularly.
>

It is something we're seeing.  Organizations who purchased licenses
for Office 2003, and see support ending in April 2014.  They are
starting to explore their options now.  A large migration will take
this long.  So this is an opportunity for those who have products or
services in areas ranging from training, to migration, document
conversion, etc.

-Rob


> -Original Message-
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:36
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)
>
> I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post
> along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"?
>
> I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for
> developers, etc.  But we are also commercially friendly, and our
> permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports
> this.  One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage
> commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in
> the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community.
> Yes, some will take and never give back.  But for many commercial
> ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community,
> having credibility and commit privileges, etc.  So it s a win-win, I
> think.
>
> The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize
> the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc.
>
> If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog,
> of course.  But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to
> put it here.
>
> No rush to decide. I won't get to this for another week, at least.
>
> -Rob
>

Open Office CD

[Jfdills]

Hello I live in a area where the only internet I can get is dial up and 
everytime I try to download Open Office i get kicked offline and have to start 
all over again so I was wondering if you have Open Office in CD form. Thank 
you for your time.

Joe Dills

RE: Enabling "QA Contact" field in Bugzilla?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 09:17
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; q...@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Enabling "QA Contact" field in Bugzilla?

Any objections to enabling the "useqacontact" field in Bugzilla?

Per the BZ doc:

"This allows you to define an email address for each component, in
addition to that of the default owner, who will be sent carbon copies
of incoming bugs."

I think this would be useful, so then we can divvy up bug reports for
QA, while not interfering with the primary dev assignment.  What we
have right now is awkward, since we're using the assignment field for
both Dev and QA.

If no objections I'll enable this on Thursday.

-Rob

RE: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

+1 although I don't know what MS Office 2003 end-of-life has to do with it, 
particularly.  

-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 10:36
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post
along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"?

I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for
developers, etc.  But we are also commercially friendly, and our
permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports
this.  One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage
commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in
the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community.
Yes, some will take and never give back.  But for many commercial
ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community,
having credibility and commit privileges, etc.  So it s a win-win, I
think.

The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize
the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc.

If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog,
of course.  But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to
put it here.

No rush to decide. I won't get to this for another week, at least.

-Rob

Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:52 PM, janI  wrote:
> On 21 January 2013 19:36, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post
>> along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"?
>>
>> I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for
>> developers, etc.  But we are also commercially friendly, and our
>> permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports
>> this.  One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage
>> commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in
>> the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community.
>> Yes, some will take and never give back.  But for many commercial
>> ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community,
>> having credibility and commit privileges, etc.  So it s a win-win, I
>> think.
>>
>> The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize
>> the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc.
>>
>> If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog,
>> of course.  But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to
>> put it here.
>>
>
> For me it would depend a lot on the wording. It is a fact that
> people/companies make money of our non-paid work, but to me it is another
> level to actively promote it.
>
> The right place to put it, is as you write the AOO blog and The business
> models should be presented in a way that (if for nothing else, then pure
> morally) part of the earnings should flow back to AOO, in order to keep us
> going,
>

Yes, that would be my intent.

> I do not really see it as win-win, when a company makes money and has
> commit rights. I (as many others) have commit rights and do not earn money,
> we do it for other reasons.
>

Maybe this question deserves its own thread, but what would increase
your enjoyment/satisfaction with volunteer with AOO?

If seeing the project advance faster, seeing more stuff getting done,
fewer things left undone, then this is made easier with more
investment into the ecosystem.  And that becomes a virtuous cycle,
since that success attracts more volunteers, which leads to further
success.

> This is of course just my opinion which in one sentence is
> "good initative, but feeling comfortable depends a lot on content of the
> business models"
>

Well, I haven't written in yet, but I was thinking of a listing or
catalog of ways of making money from OpenOffice.  Maybe 10 or so.  So
not "get rich quick" stuff, and generally a pitch for involvement by
for-profit organizations.

-Rob

> Jan I.
>
>
>>
>> No rush to decide. I won't get to this for another week, at least.
>>
>> -Rob
>>

What rights are given in an SGA

[Rob Weir]

Since this has come up recently, I'd like to point you all to a recent
thread on the legal-discuss list:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser

If you are not familiar with the SGA form, you can see it here:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/cla-corporate.txt

As you can see, it is a combined Corporate CLA and Software Grant
Agreement.  Notice it does not speak of the Apache License, but it
does offer its own copyright and patent license.

The license portion in question was this:

"Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions
  of this Agreement, You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
  recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
  worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
  copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of,
  publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute
  Your Contributions and such derivative works."

The question was:  What does "software distributed by the Foundation"
mean?  Does that mean only releases?  Code in SVN?  What exactly?

As you can read in the archives, the response was that stuff in SVN is
considered "distributed by the Foundation", so the license of the SGA
applies to contributions made under SGA and checked into Subversion.

But note also Roy's later clarifying response:

"The dev subversion repo is not a means of distributing to the
"general public".  It distributes to our self-selected development
teams that are expected to be aware of the state of the code being
distributed.

When we distribute to the "general public", it is called a release."

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201301.mbox/browser

That was the basis for the DISCLAIMER I put in the root of our
Subversion a couple of days ago:

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/DISCLAIMER

I don't think this is anything new.  We already know that code that
we're releasing requires careful review and verification of file
headers, LICENSE and NOTICE files, etc.  That is part of what it means
to publish a release at Apache.  But we have other stuff in Subversion
that we do not intend to include in a release, and for which we do not
make this effort.  For example, /devtools, /ooo-site and /symphony.

Regards,

-Rob

Re: How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

[janI]

On 21 January 2013 19:36, Rob Weir  wrote:

> I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post
> along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"?
>
> I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for
> developers, etc.  But we are also commercially friendly, and our
> permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports
> this.  One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage
> commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in
> the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community.
> Yes, some will take and never give back.  But for many commercial
> ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community,
> having credibility and commit privileges, etc.  So it s a win-win, I
> think.
>
> The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize
> the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc.
>
> If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog,
> of course.  But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to
> put it here.
>

For me it would depend a lot on the wording. It is a fact that
people/companies make money of our non-paid work, but to me it is another
level to actively promote it.

The right place to put it, is as you write the AOO blog and The business
models should be presented in a way that (if for nothing else, then pure
morally) part of the earnings should flow back to AOO, in order to keep us
going,

I do not really see it as win-win, when a company makes money and has
commit rights. I (as many others) have commit rights and do not earn money,
we do it for other reasons.

This is of course just my opinion which in one sentence is
"good initative, but feeling comfortable depends a lot on content of the
business models"

Jan I.


>
> No rush to decide. I won't get to this for another week, at least.
>
> -Rob
>

Re: Enabling "QA Contact" field in Bugzilla?

[Kay Schenk]

On 01/21/2013 09:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

Any objections to enabling the "useqacontact" field in Bugzilla?


go for it!



Per the BZ doc:

"This allows you to define an email address for each component, in
addition to that of the default owner, who will be sent carbon copies
of incoming bugs."

I think this would be useful, so then we can divvy up bug reports for
QA, while not interfering with the primary dev assignment.  What we
have right now is awkward, since we're using the assignment field for
both Dev and QA.

If no objections I'll enable this on Thursday.

-Rob



--

MzK

"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
 -- Aesop

How to make money with Apache OpenOffice (proposed blog post)

[Rob Weir]

I'm wondering if anyone would be offended or object with a blog post
along the lines of "How to make money with Apache OpenOffice"?

I appreciate that Apache is a non-profit and that we do not pay for
developers, etc.  But we are also commercially friendly, and our
permissive license and focus on consumable source releases supports
this.  One view is that this is good for the community, to encourage
commercial interest in a product, since that leads to investment in
the code, and investment leads to a larger, more diverse community.
Yes, some will take and never give back.  But for many commercial
ventures there are notable advantages to working with the community,
having credibility and commit privileges, etc.  So it s a win-win, I
think.

The proposed blog post would cover a few business models, emphasize
the opportunity brought on by the end of life of MS Office 2003, etc.

If anyone is uncomfortable with this I can do it on my personal blog,
of course.  But it is relevant to the AOO project, so I'd prefer to
put it here.

No rush to decide. I won't get to this for another week, at least.

-Rob

Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Donald Whytock  wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof.  This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts of interest:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide
>
> This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
> matter.  Whether offering a competing product and being personally
> committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
> "personal involvement" is a complicated question.
>
> Regarding opinionated content:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX
>
> This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
> things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles.  As others have
> said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
> doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
> value judgments aren't facts.  At best, one can say that such-and-such
> person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
> judgments.
>


Facts are a funny thing. I could make Albert Einstein look like
deranged psychopath if I picked my facts selectively.  So there must
be more than just facts  Facts support a narrative, and a biased
narrative, even if connected by facts, is still a biased narrative.

The editing here is very dishonest.  For example, there is the
assertion "Most development is now done by IBM employees".  Two
references are given.  But then if you look at the references they
don't actually back up the assertion.  They are pseudo-citations,
decoration.

Similar, hearsay seems to be counted as facts.  For example, the
innuendo in "In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and trademarks
to the Apache Software Foundation, unilaterally relicensing all
contributions under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM (to
whom Oracle had contractual obligations concerning the code)."

But the the citations don't back this up.  One citation is merely
hearsay,  "Oracle, which I'm told has contractual obligations to IBM".
 Does hearsay count as a reliable source? And the second citation
doesn't even remotely support the assertion.

This is all a house of cards he is putting up.  But he is at it again today.

-Rob


> Just above that is
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM
>
> which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.
>
> Regarding it getting ugly:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
>
> AKA
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND
>
> Regarding dispute resolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution
>
> Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
> that should be tried first.  Arbitration is apparently meant for
> situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
> of the article.
>
> Regarding neutral point-of-view:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
>
> This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
> for resolving the situation.  The article can be tagged as being part
> of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard.  The
> similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
> be the very last resort.
>
> Don
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
>> Rob Weir wrote:
 For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
 > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
 > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
 > is something we can do.
 >
>>>
>>> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
>>>
>>> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
>>> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
>>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>>
>>> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>
>> In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
>> an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
>> would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
>> Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
>> thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
>> Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
>> untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
>> including the offended parties.
>>
>> I can't recall but I would be curi

Re: OpenOffice thin client edition - why not?

[Donald Whytock]

Thanks to the Apache OpenOffice Wikipedia article, I see there's
OpenOffice Anywhere (http://www.ooanywhere.com/) that claims to
provide browser access to OpenOffice 3.  OpenOffice Anywhere charges a
fee for this service.

Given Google Docs is free, and AOO is free, I have doubts about the
long-term viability of their business model.  But it does suggest a
thin client is workable.

Don

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Fernando Cassia  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Fernando Cassia  wrote:
>> Ha! it looks as if I had written it with regards to AOO thin client ;)
>
> I´ll try to see if this thing is buildable and I can sort f make a
> wrapper-launcher for AOO...
>
> FC

Enabling "QA Contact" field in Bugzilla?

[Rob Weir]

Any objections to enabling the "useqacontact" field in Bugzilla?

Per the BZ doc:

"This allows you to define an email address for each component, in
addition to that of the default owner, who will be sent carbon copies
of incoming bugs."

I think this would be useful, so then we can divvy up bug reports for
QA, while not interfering with the primary dev assignment.  What we
have right now is awkward, since we're using the assignment field for
both Dev and QA.

If no objections I'll enable this on Thursday.

-Rob

Re: Assigning Issues to the issues List?

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> My impression is that addition of issues@ o.a.o to the CC list is automatic.  
> But maybe that is only for new issues since the move to Apache bugzilla.  In 
> that case, it makes sense to clean up old ones that way.
>

Exactly.  Every "product" has one or more "components".  For example,
the spreadsheet product has the following components:

code
configuration
editing
formatting
open-import
printing
programming
save-export
ui

And each component then has "default assignee" and a "default cc
list".  We have them both set to "iss...@openoffice.apache.org" for
all products and components.  But the legacy project did fine-grained
default assignments to various product-specific mailing lists.

The "default assignee" field must be set.  But the "default cc list"
is optional.

-Rob
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 08:26
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Assigning Issues to the issues List?
>
> Hi,
>
>
> Am 18.01.2013 um 23:52 schrieb "Dennis E. Hamilton" :
>
>> I just noticed these changes on issues to clear out old bug assignees.  I 
>> recall a bunch of mystery e-mails being used and now I see issues@ 
>> openoffice.apache.org.
>>
>> That's odd, since that is a mailing list.  It is the mailing list that all 
>> bugzilla issues and issue updates are reported to.  It is automatically CC'd 
>> by bugzilla.  It's atom feed can be subscribed to also: 
>> .
>
> I had figured out together with Herbert some month ago that issues@o.a.o is 
> not automatically CC'd - it has to be on the CC list or the assignee of the 
> issue.
>
> Best Regards, Oliver.
>
>>
>> So I think issues@ o.a.o is not someone who can do anything, including being 
>> assigned a bug?  And the subscribers to issues@ o.a.o already receive 
>> information about such an issue.
>>
>> I suppose that this is a reasonable way to notify folks that the issue is 
>> unclaimed, although a none or no-one assignee might work better.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: bugzi...@apache.org [mailto:bugzi...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:40
>> To: iss...@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: [Bug 92373] PPT import/export of media events
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
>>
>> Rob Weir  changed:
>>
>>   What|Removed |Added
>> 
>>   Assignee|sven.jac...@oracle.com  |iss...@openoffice.apache.or
>>   ||g
>>
>> --
>> You are receiving this mail because:
>> You are on the CC list for the bug.
>> You are the assignee for the bug.
>>
>

Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays

[Donald Whytock]

Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
object to an article or a piece thereof.  This comes out largely as
finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
argument.

Regarding conflicts of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide

This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
matter.  Whether offering a competing product and being personally
committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
"personal involvement" is a complicated question.

Regarding opinionated content:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

AKA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX

This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles.  As others have
said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
value judgments aren't facts.  At best, one can say that such-and-such
person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
judgments.

Just above that is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought

AKA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM

which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.

Regarding it getting ugly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground

AKA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND

Regarding dispute resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
that should be tried first.  Arbitration is apparently meant for
situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
of the article.

Regarding neutral point-of-view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
for resolving the situation.  The article can be tagged as being part
of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard.  The
similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
be the very last resort.

Don

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts  wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>>> > is something we can do.
>>> >
>>
>> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
>>
>> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
>> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
>>
>> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
> an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
> would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
> Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
> thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
> Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
> untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
> including the offended parties.
>
> I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of
> means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about
> anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff
> (recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre
> falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is
> the agonistic one.
>
> So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My
> motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF.
> Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on
> Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But
> what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and
> clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work.
>
> Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis.
>
> best
> Louis
>
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo

Merging Lotus Symphony: Allegro moderato

[Rob Weir]

Our latest blog post:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/merging_lotus_symphony_allegro_moderato

I've posted on our Facebook and Google+ pages, and once via Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/ApacheOO/posts/121057218069097

https://plus.google.com/u/0/114598373874764163668/posts/ipZVtpwoRBZ

https://twitter.com/ApacheOO/status/293398126314795008

As always, your help spreading the word is much appreciated.  That's
the "social" part of social networking.

Regards,

-Rob

RE: Assigning Issues to the issues List?

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

My impression is that addition of issues@ o.a.o to the CC list is automatic.  
But maybe that is only for new issues since the move to Apache bugzilla.  In 
that case, it makes sense to clean up old ones that way.

 - Dennis

-Original Message-
From: Oliver-Rainer Wittmann [mailto:orwittm...@googlemail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 08:26
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: Assigning Issues to the issues List?

Hi,


Am 18.01.2013 um 23:52 schrieb "Dennis E. Hamilton" :

> I just noticed these changes on issues to clear out old bug assignees.  I 
> recall a bunch of mystery e-mails being used and now I see issues@ 
> openoffice.apache.org.
> 
> That's odd, since that is a mailing list.  It is the mailing list that all 
> bugzilla issues and issue updates are reported to.  It is automatically CC'd 
> by bugzilla.  It's atom feed can be subscribed to also: 
> .

I had figured out together with Herbert some month ago that issues@o.a.o is not 
automatically CC'd - it has to be on the CC list or the assignee of the issue.

Best Regards, Oliver.

> 
> So I think issues@ o.a.o is not someone who can do anything, including being 
> assigned a bug?  And the subscribers to issues@ o.a.o already receive 
> information about such an issue.
> 
> I suppose that this is a reasonable way to notify folks that the issue is 
> unclaimed, although a none or no-one assignee might work better.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: bugzi...@apache.org [mailto:bugzi...@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:40
> To: iss...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [Bug 92373] PPT import/export of media events
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
> 
> Rob Weir  changed:
> 
>   What|Removed |Added
> 
>   Assignee|sven.jac...@oracle.com  |iss...@openoffice.apache.or
>   ||g
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
> You are the assignee for the bug.
> 

Re: Symphony code in AOO 4.0

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:14 PM, F C. Costero  wrote:
>> On 1/20/2013 2:48 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

 On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Andrea
 Pescettiwrote:

> Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> OK.  Here is a draft:
>> https://blogs.apache.org/**preview/OOo/?previewEntry=**
>>
>> merging_symphony_allegro_non_**troppo
>> Note that there are some suggested topics at the end, where I need
>> detail.  I welcome help from anyone who can help fill in the details.
>>
>
 Highly interesting *and* entertaining!



>
> Thanks! In the draft you ask for the screenshots showing enhancements: I
> think it's the same page by Shenfeng Liu we've already shared here,
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_**
>
> Improvement_Since_AOO341
> (they are not all from Symphony, but the majority are, including all
> "OOXML Support" enhancements).
>
> Can the long bullet list be prioritized in some ways? Not all the list,
> but at least making sure that the first few items are the most relevant.
> I
> would put issues containing "crash" first, but maybe someone who has
> better
> knowledge of the impact can suggest other issues worth to be listed at
> the
> top.
>

 Yes, it would be good to give category headings for this list.  I
 understand the jsutification for length -- what, really, is being
 incorporated from Symphony, but if length is an issue, maybe drop some.

>>>
>>> OK.  Look now.  I re-ordered the bugs a little to put some of the more
>>> interesting ones first.  I also added a header.  Since an article is
>>> coming out in a couple of days on Lwn.net claiming that we have done
>>> absolutely nothing with the Symphony code, there is value in giving
>>> the full list.  We should leave no doubt that work in this area has
>>> been ongoing.  While some were working on the more publicly visible
>>> AOO 3.4.1 work on a branch, a lot was happening in the trunk.  We
>>> haven't really spoken about that work before.  Now is a good time.
>>>

> The title "Allegro non troppo" is a clever pun! The expression is
> clearly
> recognizable as international musical jargon and a pun on Symphony, but
> the
> usual meaning of "allegro" in Italian is "happy" which adds an
> interesting
> twist...
>
> Minor typo just before the bullet list: "the fix fro Symphony".
>
> Regards,
>Andrea.
>

 Finally, although I realize that most blog readers will be non-technical,
 I
 think it might be valuable to at least broach the subject of SGA vs
 licensing here in some way.  Even if a few sentences could be added
 under:

 "IBM Lotus Symphony is a commercial derivative of OpenOffice which IBM
 enhanced  for
 their
 customer and corporate use.Last May IBM contributed the source code
 for
 Symphony to Apache, via a Software Grant Agreement (SGA). "

 to address this it would be great. What does it mean to contribute code
 and
 "use" it piecemeal vs re-licensing it , for example.

>>>
>>> I added some additional text to explain what an SGA is.  I also
>>> corrected the typo that Andrea pointed out and add the link to the
>>> "before&  after" screen shots that he posted.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So I'm happy to make further changes or content additions. But I'm
>>> generally happy with.
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>
>>>
 This is  a great blog! I'm sure our users and general audience will
 appreciate it!

 --

 
 MzK

 "No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."

 --
 Aesop
>>
>> Rob,
>>   Thanks for working on this, it is very well done. I noticed a couple of
>> typos in the third movement:
>
> Great.  Thanks for the proof-read.  I made those changes.
>

And the blog post is now live:
https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/merging_lotus_symphony_allegro_moderato

Thanks, all, for the review and suggestions.

-Rob

> -Rob
>
>> "A a modeless property picker" needs only one "A".
>> "So we're considering at several" drop the "at"
>> "and we're bring those into OpenOffice. " should be "and we're bringing
>> those into OpenOffice".
>> I'm also not sure "modeless" will be meaningful to regular users. Would
>> "continuously available" be better?
>> Regards,
>> Francis

Re: Error (maybe) installing yesterdays daily build

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,

Am 19.01.2013 um 16:07 schrieb Ariel Constenla-Haile :

> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:15:24AM +0100, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:
>>> So the main files went in fine, with the new directory names under /opt
>>> The desktop integration however gave these error messages:
>>> dpkg: regarding apache_openoffice3.5-debian-menus_3.5-9611_all.deb
>>> containing apache:
>>> apache2.2-common conflicts with apache
>>>  apache (version 3.5-9611) is to be installed.
>>> 
>>> dpkg: error processing apache_openoffice3.5-debian-menus_3.5-9611_all.deb
>>> (--install):
>>> conflicting packages - not installing apache
>>> Errors were encountered while processing:
>>> apache_openoffice3.5-debian-menus_3.5-9611_all.deb
>>> 
>>> Just thought I'd pass it along.
>> 
>> Thanks for passing it along.
>> 
>> I assume that this error is caused by the changes for the renaming -
>> issue 121388 - as also the packages had been renamed.
>> 
>> Can somebody with expertise in the area of debian packages help me
>> to solve the issue?
>> 
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Oliver.
> 
> The bug is in main/sysui/desktop/debian/makefile.mk in the rule
> %/DEBIAN/control : $$(@:f)
> 
> The line
> 
> echo "Package: $(*:f:s/_/ /:1:s/3.5//)" > $@
> 
> Is writing "Packege: apache" in the control file.
> 
> 
> given ../../unxlngx6/misc/apache_openoffice3.5-debian-menus_3.5-9611_all
> 
> * :f returns the file (including suffix) portion of path names
> 
> :f -> apache_openoffice3.5-debian-menus_3.5-9611_all
> 
> 
> * :s/_/ / replaces the underscore with a space 
> 
> :s/_/ / -> apache openoffice3.5 debian menus 3.5-9611 all
> 
> 
> * :1 returns the first white space separated token from value
> 
> :1 -> apache
> 
> The underscore in PRODUCTLIST = apache_openoffice from
> main/sysui/desktop/productversion.mk is the root problem.
> 
> 

Thanks Ariel.

As we will change the naming more to 'OpenOffice' instead of 'Apache 
OpenOffice' I will consider your suggestion to adjust PRODUCTLIST.

Best Regards, Oliver

Re: Assigning Issues to the issues List?

[Oliver-Rainer Wittmann]

Hi,


Am 18.01.2013 um 23:52 schrieb "Dennis E. Hamilton" :

> I just noticed these changes on issues to clear out old bug assignees.  I 
> recall a bunch of mystery e-mails being used and now I see issues@ 
> openoffice.apache.org.
> 
> That's odd, since that is a mailing list.  It is the mailing list that all 
> bugzilla issues and issue updates are reported to.  It is automatically CC'd 
> by bugzilla.  It's atom feed can be subscribed to also: 
> .

I had figured out together with Herbert some month ago that issues@o.a.o is not 
automatically CC'd - it has to be on the CC list or the assignee of the issue.

Best Regards, Oliver.

> 
> So I think issues@ o.a.o is not someone who can do anything, including being 
> assigned a bug?  And the subscribers to issues@ o.a.o already receive 
> information about such an issue.
> 
> I suppose that this is a reasonable way to notify folks that the issue is 
> unclaimed, although a none or no-one assignee might work better.
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: bugzi...@apache.org [mailto:bugzi...@apache.org] 
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 11:40
> To: iss...@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: [Bug 92373] PPT import/export of media events
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=92373
> 
> Rob Weir  changed:
> 
>   What|Removed |Added
> 
>   Assignee|sven.jac...@oracle.com  |iss...@openoffice.apache.or
>   ||g
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
> You are the assignee for the bug.
> 

Re: Some development ideas

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi;


- Messaggio originale -
> Da: Rob Weir 

>> 
>>  4) Replace rtl::math::random with the random nuber generator in APR. We 
>> have a random number generator in SAL that we use for bookmarks in
>> documents and to seed the PRNG. APR has a crypto grade number generator
>> that could be used instead. This would add a SAL dependency on APR, but
>> it's likely that APR has functionality that would be interesting for the SAL 
>> module.
>> 
> 
> Is there an opportunity to also get functions for distributions other
> than uniform?  A randomnormal(mean, stdev)  function would be quite
> useful.
> 

You can do that with the boost PRNG but it's somewhat broken and I won't
recommend it. The is more like a random device .. it's a real random number
generator that attempts to be naturally unpredictable.


>>  5) We use hypot a lot (look it up in opengrok), perhaps we should add an
>>  implementation in SAL.
>> 
>>  Pedro.
>> 
>>  ps. If someone wants to open bugzilla issues for any of these, please 
>> don't include me, I specifically don't have time for any of it.
>> 
> 
> I'd still recommend entering these ideas into Bugzilla, classified as
> a "task" and setting an appropriate "difficulty" level.

Feel free to do that but I don't want to have to remove myself from
any notifications because I don't want them at all. Please do NOT
include me.

If the tasks get forgotten, so be it, maybe they are not that useful
at all.

Pedro.

Re: Some development ideas

[Rob Weir]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Pedro Giffuni  wrote:
> Hi;
>
> I am having fun with other areas of AOO so I don't have time to try this but 
> here
> are some ideas in case someone wants to do further work there:
>
> 1) Update libxslt: xslt is really important in OpenOffice and libxslt 1.1.28 
> works
> just fine.
>
> 2) Enable building the boost component in python. We carry both boost and
>
> Python so it would be natural to make use of them. I think some configure
> option has to be added to boost for that and then deliver the result.
>
> 3) Enable openssl in APR. Again, we carry both, not sure if we are using all
> the potential there.
>
> 4) Replace rtl::math::random with the random nuber generator in APR. We have a
> random number generator in SAL that we use for bookmarks in documents and
> to seed the PRNG. APR has a crypto grade number generator that could be used
> instead. This would add a SAL dependency on APR, but it's likely that APR
> has functionality that would be interesting for the SAL module.
>

Is there an opportunity to also get functions for distributions other
than uniform?  A randomnormal(mean, stdev)  function would be quite
useful.

> 5) We use hypot a lot (look it up in opengrok), perhaps we should add an
> implementation in SAL.
>
> Pedro.
>
> ps. If someone wants to open bugzilla issues for any of these, please don't
> include me, I specifically don't have time for any of it.
>

I'd still recommend entering these ideas into Bugzilla, classified as
a "task" and setting an appropriate "difficulty" level.  If you want
to no longer be associated with the defect, you can then remove
yourself from the notifications.  But on the mailing list these ideas
will scroll by and when we get new dev volunteers, it will invisible.
But a task with an "easy" or "simple" difficulty level, these are
easily findable for new volunteers.

-Rob

Re:Re: Re: Re: build problem

[2]

Fan Zheng，
 I'm so sorry for missing your reply because of my job. I have finished 
the building with your help.
Thank you!
 
Yi
At 2013-01-11 15:07:44,"Fan Zheng"  wrote:
>Seems your cygwin did not to be allow to use system api to create process.
>Did you use some kind of anti-virus application like Symantec EndPoint
>Protection? If yes, you may need to install a newly version with certain
>verification for cygwin.
>
>BTW, the method you executed last one "make -sr" will give a release build
>without the debug information. try "make -sr debug=true" please.
>
>
>2013/1/10 2 
>
>> After my step 2, I go to sw and run "build debug=true", but it didn'i
>> work. I got the message:
>>  >/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/sw
>> >$ build debug=true
>> cygwin warning:
>>   MS-DOS style path detected: D:/aoo/main/solenv/bin/build.pl
>>   Preferred POSIX equivalent is: /cygdrive/d/aoo/main/solenv/bin/build.pl
>>   CYGWIN environment variable option "nodosfilewarning" turns off this
>> warning.
>>   Consult the user's guide for more details about POSIX paths:
>> http://cygwin.com/cygwin-ug-net/using.html#using-pathnames
>> build -- version: 275224
>> This module has been migrated to GNU make.
>> You can only use build --all/--since here with build.pl.
>> To do the equivalent of 'build && deliver' call:
>> make -sr
>> in the module root (This will modify the solver).
>>
>> >/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/sw
>> >$ make -sr
>>   2 [main] sh 2720 fork: child -1 - CreateProcessW failed for
>> 'C:\cygwin\bin\sh.exe', errno 13
>> /bin/sh: fork: Permission denied
>> D:/aoo/main/solenv/gbuild/AllLangResTarget.mk:91: recipe for target
>> `/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/solver/341/
>> wntmsci12.pro/workdir/Dep/SrsPartTarget/sw/source/ui/index/idxmrk.src.d'
>> failed
>> make: *** [/cygdrive/d/aoo/main/solver/341/
>> wntmsci12.pro/workdir/Dep/SrsPartTarget/sw/source/ui/index/idxmrk.src.d]
>> Error 254
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 2013-01-10 11:07:51,chengjh  wrote:
>> >I am not sure your step 4,5,6...After your step 2, you can go to sw module
>> >and run "build debug=true" to do individual build with debug info once you
>> >have done modifications in sw module,and then you will find
>> >that breakpoints can be added to your modified files after the new built
>> >dlls at ..\main\solver\350\wntmsci12.pro\workdir\LinkTarget\Library are
>> >copied and pasted to your installation directory,such as
>> >D:\OO34\Basis\program\...
>> >
>> >On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, 2  wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >> I have found the dlls in solver folder, but I was another
>> problem,
>> >> when build sw with debug information, but I couldn't found the dlls with
>> >> debug infomation, where are them?
>> >> there are the command I input in cygwin:
>> >> 1.cd main
>> >> 2.source winenv.Set.sh
>> >> 4.cd instsetoo_native
>> >> 5.build --from sw --prepare # removes old output trees and solver
>> >> 6.build debug=true --from sw
>> >>
>> >> Yi
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At 2013-01-09 16:32:46,chengjh  wrote:
>> >> >Sure,the compiled object files can be found at ..\main\solver\350\
>> >> >wntmsci12.pro\workdir\CxxObject\sw\.,and dlls can be got
>> >> >from ..\main\solver\350\wntmsci12.pro
>> \workdir\LinkTarget\Library..Thanks.
>> >> >
>> >> >On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Herbert Duerr  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 09.01.2013 08:06, 2 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>  when got my own build, I couldn't found the filefolder
>> >> wntmsci12.proin sw module which be found in sc module, could it be said
>> >> that my build
>> >> >>> failed ?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That is no problem: The sw module has been converted to gbuild, so
>> that
>> >> >> the files are now in main/solver/350/wntmsci12.pro instead of the
>> >> modules
>> >> >> wntmsci12.pro folder.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Herbert
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >
>> >> >Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >
>> >Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
>>

Some development ideas

[Pedro Giffuni]

Hi;

I am having fun with other areas of AOO so I don't have time to try this but 
here
are some ideas in case someone wants to do further work there:

1) Update libxslt: xslt is really important in OpenOffice and libxslt 1.1.28 
works
just fine.

2) Enable building the boost component in python. We carry both boost and

Python so it would be natural to make use of them. I think some configure
option has to be added to boost for that and then deliver the result.

3) Enable openssl in APR. Again, we carry both, not sure if we are using all
the potential there.

4) Replace rtl::math::random with the random nuber generator in APR. We have a
random number generator in SAL that we use for bookmarks in documents and
to seed the PRNG. APR has a crypto grade number generator that could be used
instead. This would add a SAL dependency on APR, but it's likely that APR
has functionality that would be interesting for the SAL module.

5) We use hypot a lot (look it up in opengrok), perhaps we should add an
implementation in SAL.

Pedro.

ps. If someone wants to open bugzilla issues for any of these, please don't
include me, I specifically don't have time for any of it.

Re: Draft blog post: Call for Development Volunteers

[Ian C]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Fan Zheng  wrote:
>> Hi, Rob:
>>
>> I have to say that, the pictures you picked up every time, is pretty
>> impressive! And everything looks great.
>>
>
> Thanks.  There are a lot of photos on Flickr that are in the public
> domain, a collection they call 'The Flickr Commons".  These are images
> from libraries, state archives, etc.  Many of them are very old.  But
> some of them are quite good, from the 1920's and 1930's.
>
> I have identified some other photos that could be nice to use in the future;
>
> -- If we do a blog post on performance testing or performance
> improvements:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2163470598/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/
>
> -- An article on the awards OpenOffice has won recently:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2162665005/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/
>
> -- An article on mailing list conduct guidelines:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/llgc/6835497967/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/
>
> -- I don't know, but the photo is so good I'm trying to think how we
> could use it:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/3548856723/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/
>

They're excellent - how about for the project in general, pull your
trousers up, get stuck in, but remember to have fun.

> -- Team work:  
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2179922684/in/faves-rcweir/
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>> 1 question: should there be some kind of posters for such "Call for..."
>> stuff, especially within multiple languages?
>>
>>
>> 2013/1/21 Rob Weir 
>>
>>>
>>> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=call_for_development_volunteers
>>>
>>> -Rob
>>>



-- 
Cheers,

Ian C

Re: What to do with confirmed bugs?

[Herbert Duerr]

On 18.01.2013 22:47, Regina Henschel wrote:

Rob Weir schrieb:
[...]

Also, are we still using/looking at votes on bugs?  Was that an
effective way of prioritizing?


It was the only way for users to get a little bit influence on the
decision, which feature will be implemented and what changes will be
made. Now it might help those, who come and say "I want to help in
development, but do not know in which area to work." Unfortunately it is
no longer possible to select "vote" as column and sort on it. Can you
enable that?


AFAIK that is not longer possible in Bugzilla 4. There the voting 
feature has been demoted to an extension [1] and things like searching 
by vote have been removed completely [2] and the vote count is no longer 
exported via its XML or JSON webservices.


[1] http://www.bugzilla.org/releases/4.0/release-notes.html#v40_feat_vot_ext
[2] 
http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/tip/en/html/api/Bugzilla/WebService/Bug.html#search


I hope that Bugzilla gets its full voting system features back as I 
liked it and always consider the vote count when prioritizing issues.


Herbert

Re: Draft blog post: Call for Development Volunteers

[Rob Weir]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Fan Zheng  wrote:
> Hi, Rob:
>
> I have to say that, the pictures you picked up every time, is pretty
> impressive! And everything looks great.
>

Thanks.  There are a lot of photos on Flickr that are in the public
domain, a collection they call 'The Flickr Commons".  These are images
from libraries, state archives, etc.  Many of them are very old.  But
some of them are quite good, from the 1920's and 1930's.

I have identified some other photos that could be nice to use in the future;

-- If we do a blog post on performance testing or performance
improvements:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2163470598/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/

-- An article on the awards OpenOffice has won recently:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2162665005/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/

-- An article on mailing list conduct guidelines:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/llgc/6835497967/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/

-- I don't know, but the photo is so good I'm trying to think how we
could use it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/3548856723/in/faves-rcweir/lightbox/

-- Team work:  
http://www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2179922684/in/faves-rcweir/

Regards,

-Rob

> 1 question: should there be some kind of posters for such "Call for..."
> stuff, especially within multiple languages?
>
>
> 2013/1/21 Rob Weir 
>
>>
>> https://blogs.apache.org/preview/OOo/?previewEntry=call_for_development_volunteers
>>
>> -Rob
>>

Re: Pax not Pox

[Xuacu]

Hi!

As a person working in both sides (and feeling part of both
communities), I couldn't agree more. Our approach is to tell our users
«Hey, we are translating a lot of free software. Try it and see what
fits your needs better... It's free!»

All the best
--
Xuacu

2013/1/21 Louis Suárez-Potts :
> I dislike using antagonistic rhetoric and tactics to give form to
> community identity. I confess I did this myself, early in OOo's career,
> but I never engaged in FUD--there was no need, the truth was good (or
> bad) enough--though I was no doubt frequently wrong.
>
> The current efforts by published journalists, intentional or not, to
> cast aspersions on Apache OpenOffice, to discredit it, and to cheapen
> the community's efforts, need to be addressed--but not with antagonism
> and not with anger. Errors, accidental or intentional, in Wikipedia, for
> instance, but also among journalists reporting on the successors to
> OpenOffice.org, must be corrected impartially and accurately. The people
> who benefit most from our work are the users who can rely upon a fair
> community which they can join and contribute to and do so with the
> satisfaction that their contributions are valued in the best possible
> way: by making the product not only better but more likely to remain a
> commons.
>
> best
> louis
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo