New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.orgwrote: As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/**projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/**libwpd-0.9.7/http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/**projects/libwps/files/libwps/**libwps-0.2.8/http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/**projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/**libwpg-0.2.2/http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? If we do we'll need to be careful that we don't reintroduce this issue: http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-2149.html Security team has the details. -Rob Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Official survey service? (Was: Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo)
Rob Weir wrote: In any case, will you next deal with our OpenGrok and Test link instances, which are at Adfinis domains Why not? It would make sense to recognize them as important community services and point opengrok.openoffice.org and testlink.openoffice.org to them. and of course our downloads which are at sourceforge.org addresses? All the relevant HTML pages are already under openoffice.org; only the final bits are served from non-openoffice.org servers, but we are never advertising non-openoffice.org links for downloads, so no issue here. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Apr 21, 2013 2:15 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/**projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/**libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/**projects/libwps/files/libwps/**libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/**projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/**libwpg-0.2.2/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? If we do we'll need to be careful that we don't reintroduce this issue: http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2012-2149.html Security team has the details. I have heard several times, that we have a security team, but apart from a couple of very old mail threads they seem to be invisible. As I deal with security issues at least once a week it would be nice to have the members on a public list. I apologize in advance if the list exist and I just missed it. It would also be nice to know the charter of the team, does it include download, wiki etc. rgds jan I -Rob Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
#122115 Mail merge wizard selecting records mixup records
Hello I just reported this bug. Who will be assigned to this? I won't be able to solve this by myself, but I want to help. And since we need this as patch for 3.4.1 it's probably a good idea to discuss how the issue can be solved. OR there might be a workaround, which would be sufficent. Best, Jean-Louis https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122115 -- Bug report text When trying to print only a subset of records, the wizard can mixup the records. The result will also be wrong. In the example the ID column is continuos, but as you see when selecting rows 1-63 the row 63 is repeated. How to reproduce the problem: * Open the file Etiq-Test.odt * Do a mailing (File - Print ; Output in: file) * Choose records for the mailing with the mouse (ex. 1 to 10): Select ID 1, move to ID 10 press shift key and click the mouse. * Move down with the mouse till ID 63, and move up, suddenlly multiple identical record are displayed (see screenshot) - Moving up isn't always necessary, but it helps triggering the behavior. It's impossible to select certain ranges. Tested on MacOSX, Solaris and I think also Linux (not by me). Versions tested: 3.4.1 and a build of 3.5 from october I found on the web. It would be great if the fix can be done in 3.4.1, so we can send a patch to our client. -- Bug report text -- Adfinis SyGroup AG Jean-Louis 'Hans' Fuchs, Software Engineer Keltenstrasse 98 | CH-3018 Bern Tel.: +41 31 550 31 11 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Official survey service? (Was: Re: Conversation: Pick A Logo)
On Apr 21, 2013 3:26 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Rob Weir wrote: In any case, will you next deal with our OpenGrok and Test link instances, which are at Adfinis domains Why not? It would make sense to recognize them as important community services and point opengrok.openoffice.org and testlink.openoffice.org to them. +1 it is no big issue to make. However I see a big difference, these links will only be used by someone who develop/test AOO and not end-users. I think it is fair to expect that volunteers/committers does not get confused. @rob: Thx for completing the setup of survey.o.o and of course our downloads which are at sourceforge.org addresses? we could make download.openoffice.org but since we already have download links I would not do that. All the relevant HTML pages are already under openoffice.org; only the final bits are served from non-openoffice.org servers, but we are never advertising non-openoffice.org links for downloads, so no issue here. This is to me THE most important issue.we only advertise .openoffice.org. There are enough other packages out there who play with words. The newest I found was a package text formerly openoffice as if we are dead or taken over. rgds jan i Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
Licensing issues have not been entirely removed, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b. Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very specific restrictions. Having to build the code from source, especially with modifications, is problematic. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: Licensing issues have not been entirely removed, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b. Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very specific restrictions. Having to build the code from source, especially with modifications, is problematic. Yes, and several of us are very, very familiar with these restrictions. We have a good model to follow, based on past practice: 1) Don't put the code in our SVN 2) Use it only for optional features 3) Source distribution does not include the source 4) May include binaries with our binary distributions 5) Need to update license file for binary distribution -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: weekly developer snapshots
On 16/04/2013 Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshotfullsets Linux builds are there too. The ARC column contains archived installations, no need to install RPMs/DEBs, simply untar the archive. I tried Apache_OpenOffice_4.0.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US.tar.gz and it crashes for me with $ ./openoffice4/program/soffice terminate called after throwing an instance of 'com::sun::star::uno::RuntimeException' ./openoffice4/program/soffice: line 122: [...] (core dumped) $sd_prog/$sd_binary $@ If I change UserInstallation=$ORIGIN/../.openoffice/4 in bootstraprc (which is one of the steps I do when testing a new version, unrelated to the previous error) I get different errors, but still I don't manage to get the snapshot running. Yesterday I tried the latest CI build (more recent than this snapshot) and it was running fine. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [RELEASE]: weekly developer snapshots
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 05:20:38PM +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 16/04/2013 Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds#DevelopmentSnapshotBuilds-AOOSnapshotfullsets Linux builds are there too. The ARC column contains archived installations, no need to install RPMs/DEBs, simply untar the archive. I tried Apache_OpenOffice_4.0.0_Linux_x86-64_install-arc_en-US.tar.gz and it crashes for me with $ ./openoffice4/program/soffice terminate called after throwing an instance of 'com::sun::star::uno::RuntimeException' ./openoffice4/program/soffice: line 122: [...] (core dumped) $sd_prog/$sd_binary $@ Strange, I got feed back that both archived tars were working fine (and indeed I've just downloaded it, and works fine). Did you verify the download, and check untar exit code? This kind of error on startup is usually due to a configuration manager error with a broken installation. If I change UserInstallation=$ORIGIN/../.openoffice/4 in bootstraprc there is no need to change that in archived tars, their AOO installation is self contained. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpdrzpPbKo0I.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
@Rob, Thanks. That is a great summary of what is involved. I am curious, in the case of libwpd, how binaries would be obtained and what the inclusion mechanism would be. E.g., would there be shared libraries/DLLs built from unmodified external sources as part of the AOO build? I assume unmodified header files (and library definitions) for access to the APIs of the libraries would be relied upon in a similar fashion during AOO (incremental) builds. Is that a reasonable sketch of how step (4) is accomplished in this case? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 08:11 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: Licensing issues have not been entirely removed, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b. Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very specific restrictions. Having to build the code from source, especially with modifications, is problematic. Yes, and several of us are very, very familiar with these restrictions. We have a good model to follow, based on past practice: 1) Don't put the code in our SVN 2) Use it only for optional features 3) Source distribution does not include the source 4) May include binaries with our binary distributions 5) Need to update license file for binary distribution -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: @Rob, Thanks. That is a great summary of what is involved. I am curious, in the case of libwpd, how binaries would be obtained and what the inclusion mechanism would be. E.g., would there be shared libraries/DLLs built from unmodified external sources as part of the AOO build? We wouldn't include it at all in our source distribution, not in source form, not in binary form. The legal page you referenced did not say that we must include binaries. It only said that at most we could include the code in binary form in the release. You can look at how we handle analogous things in AOO today, e.g., Hunspell, and search the list archives, on this list and legal-discuss, for the voluminous prior discussions on this topic. -Rob I assume unmodified header files (and library definitions) for access to the APIs of the libraries would be relied upon in a similar fashion during AOO (incremental) builds. Is that a reasonable sketch of how step (4) is accomplished in this case? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 08:11 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Licensing issues have not been entirely removed, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b. Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very specific restrictions. Having to build the code from source, especially with modifications, is problematic. Yes, and several of us are very, very familiar with these restrictions. We have a good model to follow, based on past practice: 1) Don't put the code in our SVN 2) Use it only for optional features 3) Source distribution does not include the source 4) May include binaries with our binary distributions 5) Need to update license file for binary distribution -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
@Rob, I'm sorry. I understood about there not being any presence in our source releases in any form whatever. I was looking only at stage (4, your number) and how inclusion in binary distributions occurs as a consequence of the build process. I am clear about the ASF Legal FAQ. I was asking how the AOO project deals (or will deal) with this specific case of a Category B licensed component. I thought it was a simple question about a specific case. I had not checked on other third party software under Category B licenses are included in AOO by some means. Thanks for the reference to hunspell. I see that it is acknowledged in the LICENSE file of Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1. Can I assume that essentially the same procedure applies to both hunspell and libwpd? - Dennis PS: I am continually baffled by the notice requirements in the PDL and the Mozilla 1.1 License (sections 3.5-3.6 and EXHIBIT A - Mozilla Public License) not being satisfied. This appears to be the rule rather than the exception [;). -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:29 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: @Rob, Thanks. That is a great summary of what is involved. I am curious, in the case of libwpd, how binaries would be obtained and what the inclusion mechanism would be. E.g., would there be shared libraries/DLLs built from unmodified external sources as part of the AOO build? We wouldn't include it at all in our source distribution, not in source form, not in binary form. The legal page you referenced did not say that we must include binaries. It only said that at most we could include the code in binary form in the release. You can look at how we handle analogous things in AOO today, e.g., Hunspell, and search the list archives, on this list and legal-discuss, for the voluminous prior discussions on this topic. -Rob I assume unmodified header files (and library definitions) for access to the APIs of the libraries would be relied upon in a similar fashion during AOO (incremental) builds. Is that a reasonable sketch of how step (4) is accomplished in this case? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 08:11 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Licensing issues have not been entirely removed, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b. Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very specific restrictions. Having to build the code from source, especially with modifications, is problematic. Yes, and several of us are very, very familiar with these restrictions. We have a good model to follow, based on past practice: 1) Don't put the code in our SVN 2) Use it only for optional features 3) Source distribution does not include the source 4) May include binaries with our binary distributions 5) Need to update license file for binary distribution -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against including them now? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Can I assume that essentially the same procedure applies to both hunspell and libwpd? This is not the case currently (we don't carry libwpd in binary releases since it was LGPL-only when OpenOffice 3.4.0 was released), but I expect this to be the case if libwpd is now reintegrated (under the MPL). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On 21 April 2013 22:49, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: Can I assume that essentially the same procedure applies to both hunspell and libwpd? This is not the case currently (we don't carry libwpd in binary releases since it was LGPL-only when OpenOffice 3.4.0 was released), but I expect this to be the case if libwpd is now reintegrated (under the MPL). I am trying to understand the discussion here, and I miss something. If we do not have libwpd in our 3.4.0 release I assume we have something else to replace it (or have we removed the feature that uses libwpd?). If we have something that is tested and released in 3.4.0 why do we want to start again with libwpd ? I know I missed something, but I am not sure what. rgds Jan I. Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:49:49PM +0200, janI wrote: I am trying to understand the discussion here, and I miss something. If we do not have libwpd in our 3.4.0 release I assume we have something else to replace it (or have we removed the feature that uses libwpd?). answer in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120043#c1 Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpVNeY001_Fg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On 21 April 2013 23:55, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:49:49PM +0200, janI wrote: I am trying to understand the discussion here, and I miss something. If we do not have libwpd in our 3.4.0 release I assume we have something else to replace it (or have we removed the feature that uses libwpd?). answer in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120043#c1 thx. Now I understand the problems. Would it btw not be smarter in general to have conversions from relative old packages like wordperfect in an extension (as suggested in the bug report), that would help reduce the footprint, and users can still convert. rgds jan I Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: @Rob, I'm sorry. I understood about there not being any presence in our source releases in any form whatever. I was looking only at stage (4, your number) and how inclusion in binary distributions occurs as a consequence of the build process. I am clear about the ASF Legal FAQ. I was asking how the AOO project deals (or will deal) with this specific case of a Category B licensed component. When you build the scripts download needed source tarballs, from their home websites when possible. And then based on the build flags the you have chosen the scripts build the desired components. This is true for all 3rd party components. Being cat-a or cat-b does not change things at this level. I thought it was a simple question about a specific case. I had not checked on other third party software under Category B licenses are included in AOO by some means. Thanks for the reference to hunspell. I see that it is acknowledged in the LICENSE file of Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1. I'm not sure what part of this was unknown or unclear to you so I didn't want to presume whether you were asking a simple question or not. In fact even now I am unsure of what you're getting at. Are you starting to write AOO code? Are you volunteering to help integrate libwpd? Can I assume that essentially the same procedure applies to both hunspell and libwpd? We don't currently build with libwpd, but I assume if/when we do it would be similar. Regards, -Rob - Dennis PS: I am continually baffled by the notice requirements in the PDL and the Mozilla 1.1 License (sections 3.5-3.6 and EXHIBIT A - Mozilla Public License) not being satisfied. This appears to be the rule rather than the exception [;). -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:29 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: @Rob, Thanks. That is a great summary of what is involved. I am curious, in the case of libwpd, how binaries would be obtained and what the inclusion mechanism would be. E.g., would there be shared libraries/DLLs built from unmodified external sources as part of the AOO build? We wouldn't include it at all in our source distribution, not in source form, not in binary form. The legal page you referenced did not say that we must include binaries. It only said that at most we could include the code in binary form in the release. You can look at how we handle analogous things in AOO today, e.g., Hunspell, and search the list archives, on this list and legal-discuss, for the voluminous prior discussions on this topic. -Rob I assume unmodified header files (and library definitions) for access to the APIs of the libraries would be relied upon in a similar fashion during AOO (incremental) builds. Is that a reasonable sketch of how step (4) is accomplished in this case? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 08:11 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; orc...@apache.org Subject: Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: Licensing issues have not been entirely removed, http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b. Code with Category B MPL license is accepted in ASF projects under very specific restrictions. Having to build the code from source, especially with modifications, is problematic. Yes, and several of us are very, very familiar with these restrictions. We have a good model to follow, based on past practice: 1) Don't put the code in our SVN 2) Use it only for optional features 3) Source distribution does not include the source 4) May include binaries with our binary distributions 5) Need to update license file for binary distribution -Rob - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 01:59 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg As you can see in http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpd/files/libwpd/libwpd-0.9.7/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwps/files/libwps/libwps-0.2.8/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/libwpg/files/libwpg/libwpg-0.2.2/ the three libraries that OpenOffice was using to import WordPerfect, MS Works and WordPerfect Graphics files have now been dual-licensed; one of the licenses is MPLv2. Does this mean that we can include them back in OpenOffice if we wish to do so? If I recalled correctly, they were removed as of 3.4.0 due to incompatible licensing. Any reasons for/against
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
Hi Jani, On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:06:18AM +0200, janI wrote: I am trying to understand the discussion here, and I miss something. If we do not have libwpd in our 3.4.0 release I assume we have something else to replace it (or have we removed the feature that uses libwpd?). answer in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120043#c1 thx. Now I understand the problems. Would it btw not be smarter in general to have conversions from relative old packages like wordperfect in an extension (as suggested in the bug report), that would help reduce the footprint, and users can still convert. The suggestion quoted there is not realistic: writerfilter depends on several core libraries http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/file/c904c1944462/writerperfect/prj/build.lst An extension can use only URE libraries, so making an extension out of writerfilter will require to rewrite the code. On the other hand, re-integrating libpwd is more than re-integrating it: the code has changed, writerfilter need modifications (that is, someone in the know must update the library, it's not simply dumping the new tar and making it compile). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpZBic_oUfex.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 07:12:18PM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Jani, On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:06:18AM +0200, janI wrote: I am trying to understand the discussion here, and I miss something. If we do not have libwpd in our 3.4.0 release I assume we have something else to replace it (or have we removed the feature that uses libwpd?). answer in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120043#c1 thx. Now I understand the problems. Would it btw not be smarter in general to have conversions from relative old packages like wordperfect in an extension (as suggested in the bug report), that would help reduce the footprint, and users can still convert. The suggestion quoted there is not realistic: writerfilter depends on several core libraries http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/file/c904c1944462/writerperfect/prj/build.lst An extension can use only URE libraries, so making an extension out of writerfilter will require to rewrite the code. On the other hand, re-integrating libpwd is more than re-integrating it: the code has changed, writerfilter need modifications (that is, someone in the know must update the library, it's not simply dumping the new tar and making it compile). s/writerfilter/writerperfect/ I couldn't find any reference to libwps, nor libwpg. It seems they are used in LO, which may have better support for this kind of documents. If so, it would make sense to take their code and make a filter extension out of it (or duplicate the work here). Any way, everything in this thread is reduced to the usual someone (in the know) has to do it. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpcv_VxSkke6.pgp Description: PGP signature
[Proposal]Improve Writer Table Header to Export Complete Info for Accessibility
Currently, there is an accessibility issue for table header. If end users create Writer table and check the table header in the table dialog, the table header will have Table Header style and can be exported to pdf/doc completely,and Adobe Professional can recognize the table header correctly.That's right. But if end users don't check table header when creating table, and then set the table header through table properties dialog, the table header will not be set with Table Header style. Thus, the table will lose necessary header info when being exported to pdf/doc, Adobe Professiona will not recognize the table header. That's a problem. I propose the solve the problem to meet the complete accessibility requirement. -- Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
AOO 4.0 FVT(Sidebar Testing) weekly Report
Hi, all By now, we have completed 71.65% sidebar test. 12 volunteers took part in sidebar test. 31 sidebar defects are opened to track sidebar issue. We're expected to complete sidebar test this Wednesday. More information of sidebar test is herehttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/QA/Report/AOO4.0FeatureReport . Any comment is welcomed. Thanks!
[CODE]: regression 3layer Windows setup
Hi, I thought I tested very careful but it seems that I did not :-( I tested mainly the archives on windows because it's easier and faster and they worked well. I had tested the setup before and at this time it worked. Currently some former URE directories are not correct and the setup won't work. I have partly fixed the problem and I hope I can fix it today before I am off for 2 days. At the moment you can only and test the archive builds. The related issue for this problem is https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122101 Jueergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: New license for libwpd, libwps, libwpg
On 4/22/13 12:24 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 07:12:18PM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Jani, On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:06:18AM +0200, janI wrote: I am trying to understand the discussion here, and I miss something. If we do not have libwpd in our 3.4.0 release I assume we have something else to replace it (or have we removed the feature that uses libwpd?). answer in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=120043#c1 thx. Now I understand the problems. Would it btw not be smarter in general to have conversions from relative old packages like wordperfect in an extension (as suggested in the bug report), that would help reduce the footprint, and users can still convert. The suggestion quoted there is not realistic: writerfilter depends on several core libraries http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/file/c904c1944462/writerperfect/prj/build.lst An extension can use only URE libraries, so making an extension out of writerfilter will require to rewrite the code. On the other hand, re-integrating libpwd is more than re-integrating it: the code has changed, writerfilter need modifications (that is, someone in the know must update the library, it's not simply dumping the new tar and making it compile). s/writerfilter/writerperfect/ I couldn't find any reference to libwps, nor libwpg. It seems they are used in LO, which may have better support for this kind of documents. If so, it would make sense to take their code and make a filter extension out of it (or duplicate the work here). Any way, everything in this thread is reduced to the usual someone (in the know) has to do it. exactly and who really cares about this formats? We should better improve the OOXML support and think about an export as well. I would recommend that we don't waste time to discuss something that is not relevant at the moment. It's early enough to discuss when we have something concrete. Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
