Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Hello; You are right. My comparison was insensible and way out of line. I apologize and I will take a break from the lists for a while. Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Everything has been said in this thread, Godwin´s law has been invoked. Unless new information is injected, I ask you let it go and stop this thread. Regards, Andre
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Am 03.02.2013 03:33, schrieb Pedro Giffuni: - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir ... So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss this issue with legal@." Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did this **two weeks ago**: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've waited some more minutes. These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is NOT acceptable. I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. You are way out of line. Please stop this. Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to Please don´t talk about other peoples attitude after the comment above. -Andre behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial > reply. > > My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For > example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct > and so I removed it..." > I thought my response was quite cordial. Sorry if you did not see it that way. Recall I wrote: "Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark registration is explicitly for software, not for a website. So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't want to mess around with trademark fraud." So I acknowledged your good intentions and said "please". After ignoring my two previous objections to the use of (R) for such a link, I think this was quite polite. If I sounded brief, it was because I believed the situation was urgent and that you had already been adequately informed of my concerns. Regards, -Rob > That is all I'm going to say about it for now. > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Messaggio originale - Da: Rob Weir >>> ... > > So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please > take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: > > "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss > this issue with legal@." Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did this **two weeks ago**: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 >>> >>> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've >>> waited some more minutes. >> >> Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually >> putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us >> in an immediate danger. >> >> What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very >> carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company >> is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone >> sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out >> of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark >> registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but >> the ***very next business day***. >> >> It took some special effort and legal work to get that application >> rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the >> full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks >> wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of >> ignorance. >> >> Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in >> similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for >> doing this. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> > These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is NOT acceptable. I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. >>> >>> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. >>> >>> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to >>> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to >>> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. >>> >>> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
I have no problem with the change that you made, and I said so in my initial reply. My problem is the way that you characterized it. You can be more polite. For example, "I like the link you added, but I think that the (R) is not correct and so I removed it..." That is all I'm going to say about it for now. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:41 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >> >> >> >> - Messaggio originale - >>> Da: Rob Weir >> ... So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really >>> urgent please take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for >>> now and we can discuss this issue with legal@." >>> >>> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did >>> this **two weeks ago**: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 >> >> If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've >> waited some more minutes. > > Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually > putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us > in an immediate danger. > > What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very > carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company > is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone > sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out > of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark > registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but > the ***very next business day***. > > It took some special effort and legal work to get that application > rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the > full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks > wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of > ignorance. > > Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in > similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for > doing this. > > Regards, > > -Rob > These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it >>> again" is NOT acceptable. >>> >>> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. >> >> You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. >> >> Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to >> behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to >> spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. >> >> Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > > - Messaggio originale - >> Da: Rob Weir > ... >>> >>> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really >> urgent please >>> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: >>> >>> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for >> now and we can discuss >>> this issue with legal@." >>> >> >> Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did >> this **two weeks ago**: >> >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 >> > > If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've > waited some more minutes. > Actually, no. Talking about the change was fine. But actually putting this on the website, if my interpretation is correct, put us in an immediate danger. What you may not be aware of, is that there is a company watching very carefully, waiting for us to screw up with the trademark. The company is the same one that runs several of the malware OpenOffice clone sites. For example, when Oracle announced that they were getting out of OpenOffice, this company immediately submitted a trademark registration for OpenOffice. Not a month later, not a week later, but the ***very next business day***. It took some special effort and legal work to get that application rejected. I know about this. Others may not. But you can see the full record of it in TESS. So the belief that you can get trademarks wrong on the website for a 72 hour discussion is a dangerous form of ignorance. Again, I removed this and I would do it again, without hesitation, in similar circumstances. I should have your thanks, not your scorn, for doing this. Regards, -Rob >>> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it >> again" is NOT acceptable. >>> >> >> I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. >> > > You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. > > Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to > behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to > spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. > > Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
- Messaggio originale - > Da: Rob Weir ... >> >> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really > urgent please >> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: >> >> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for > now and we can discuss >> this issue with legal@." >> > > Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did > this **two weeks ago**: > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 > If this is going on for more than two weeks you could've waited some more minutes. >> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it > again" is NOT acceptable. >> > > I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. > You are starting to sound like Anders Breivik. Your attitude is recurrent and I don't really have time to tell you how to behave in a community, I will only say that issues like this push me to spend more time on my *other* favorite software project. Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >>> >>> Da: Andrea Pescetti >> ... >>> >>>Joe Schaefer wrote: This tempest in a teapot is not about a wayward revert as you did not completely back out the commit- you just patched it. >>> >>>Exactly. It is rather clear from here: >>> >>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h >>>Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the >>>reason for the commit was to add the link (see log). >>> >>>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h >>>Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and >>>informs the list. >>> >>>I don't see anything bad here. >> >> I don't see a big issue around the partial revert but I do see an attitude >> problem. >> We are building a community every day and everyone, especially PMC members, >> are expected to be politically correct and give other participants space and >> respect. >> >> So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really >> urgent please >> take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: >> >> "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and >> we can discuss >> this issue with legal@." >> > > Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did > this **two weeks ago**: > > https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 > I also objected for the same reasons on the dev list on January 15th: http://markmail.org/message/7listvk74bp2tlcb So I raised legal objections to this change twice, and also expressed a -1 on the change (my right as a committer) until we had legal review on this. David went forward and made the change despite these repeated objections, with no attempt to respond to them. Perhaps he missed the notes? This is not acceptable. Again, in similar circumstances I would not hesitate, not for a second, to do the same. Regards, -Rob >> These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is >> NOT acceptable. >> > > I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. > > -Rob > >> I hate to say this but our mentors warned us exactly about this type of >> situation[1]. >> >> Pedro. >> >> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM >>
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >> >> Da: Andrea Pescetti > ... >> >>Joe Schaefer wrote: >>> This tempest in a teapot is not about >>> a wayward revert as you did not completely >>> back out the commit- you just patched it. >> >>Exactly. It is rather clear from here: >> >>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h >>Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the >>reason for the commit was to add the link (see log). >> >>http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h >>Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and >>informs the list. >> >>I don't see anything bad here. > > I don't see a big issue around the partial revert but I do see an attitude > problem. > We are building a community every day and everyone, especially PMC members, > are expected to be politically correct and give other participants space and > respect. > > So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent > please > take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: > > "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and > we can discuss > this issue with legal@." > Actually, I did explain this in the BZ issue for this item, and I did this **two weeks ago**: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 > These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is > NOT acceptable. > I say again, I would do exactly the same thing in similar circumstances. -Rob > I hate to say this but our mentors warned us exactly about this type of > situation[1]. > > Pedro. > > [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM >
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
> > Da: Andrea Pescetti ... > >Joe Schaefer wrote: >> This tempest in a teapot is not about >> a wayward revert as you did not completely >> back out the commit- you just patched it. > >Exactly. It is rather clear from here: > >http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h >Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the >reason for the commit was to add the link (see log). > >http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h >Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and >informs the list. > >I don't see anything bad here. I don't see a big issue around the partial revert but I do see an attitude problem. We are building a community every day and everyone, especially PMC members, are expected to be politically correct and give other participants space and respect. So, if you are planning to revert someone elses change and it's really urgent please take the time and write a polite message *before* reverting saying: "Hello Dave, I think this is a really bad idea, I will revert it for now and we can discuss this issue with legal@." These bullying in the lines of "I reverted it .. and I will do it again" is NOT acceptable. I hate to say this but our mentors warned us exactly about this type of situation[1]. Pedro. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q52kFL8zVoM
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Joe Schaefer wrote: This tempest in a teapot is not about a wayward revert as you did not completely back out the commit- you just patched it. Exactly. It is rather clear from here: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1419051&r2=1441659&diff_format=h Dave adds a link to the OpenOffice.org site and includes a (R) too, but the reason for the commit was to add the link (see log). http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?r1=1441659&r2=1441662&diff_format=h Rob does not change the link, but removes the (R) over legal concerns and informs the list. I don't see anything bad here. It was a patch that respected the intentions behind Dave's commit. Anyway, it is very good that the trademark issue came up again, so that we can get clear indications on what must be done for 4.0. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
This tempest in a teapot is not about a wayward revert as you did not completely back out the commit- you just patched it. BFD- move on. > > From: Rob Weir >To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni >Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 1:40 PM >Subject: Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - >/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext > >On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: >> >> >> - Messaggio originale - >>> Da: Tim Williams >> ... >>>> >>>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >>>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >>>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >>>> and did not act quickly. >>> >>> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially >>> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with >>> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave >>> as you >>> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't >>> revert other's commits in the future... >>> >>> --tim >>> >> >> I agree with Tim. It is rude to revert someone else's changes without >> giving the original committer the time to fix it himself or defend his >> position. There is no good reason to be rude with a colleague. >> > >Call it rude, call it antisocial, call it whatever you want. I would >do it again in similar circumstances without hesitation. And I would >recommend others to do the same. No one's commits are holy scripture. > >And remember, CTR is not appropriate for all circumstances. Making >new trademark claims is something where RTC is more appropriate. > >-Rob > >-Rob >> Pedro. > > >
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > - Messaggio originale - >> Da: Tim Williams > ... >>> >>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >>> and did not act quickly. >> >> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially >> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with >> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave >> as you >> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't >> revert other's commits in the future... >> >> --tim >> > > I agree with Tim. It is rude to revert someone else's changes without > giving the original committer the time to fix it himself or defend his > position. There is no good reason to be rude with a colleague. > Call it rude, call it antisocial, call it whatever you want. I would do it again in similar circumstances without hesitation. And I would recommend others to do the same. No one's commits are holy scripture. And remember, CTR is not appropriate for all circumstances. Making new trademark claims is something where RTC is more appropriate. -Rob -Rob > Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
- Messaggio originale - > Da: Tim Williams ... >> >> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >> and did not act quickly. > > I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially > unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with > that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave > as you > intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't > revert other's commits in the future... > > --tim > I agree with Tim. It is rude to revert someone else's changes without giving the original committer the time to fix it himself or defend his position. There is no good reason to be rude with a colleague. Pedro.
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: > If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal > ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately > modified before review, which is what was done. > > So if I seem something that is wrong, should I fix it, or should I ask the > person that made the initial error to fix it? Are there specific guidelines > for this? Off hand, your comments lead me to believe that I should not If there is a fire, put it out. Don't wait to discuss it. But immediately after you put out the fire explain what you did and why. If it is not a fire, then generally: 1) If you think the change is non-controversial, then JFDI. 2) If you think the change is controversial, then post the proposal to the list and look for lazy consensus. That means waiting a while to see if anyone objects. Note: Reverting someone's recent commit is almost guaranteed to be controversial, so you don't want to do that unless you think it is a fire. But be prepared to take some heat in that case, since some who never saw the fire will be saying, "WTF!? That antisocial bastard just sprayed water all over the place!" > modify existing content, I should always have the initial committer do it. No, please. Let's not set up exclusive domains of ownership. You should feel empowered to make changes in any area where you are technically competent, regardless of who else has worked in that area. Of course, in some areas we should have respect and deference for those with greater expertise in the area, and we would naturally want to review significant changes with them on the list. For example, although I can (and may) change the download scripts, I would not want to do that without getting review by Marcus. It is the expertise I respect, but that is different than a claim of control over an area. > Note that I have stuck pretty close to this so far -- so now you know one > reason that I have not modified any of our existing documentation; our > process does not allow for modifications reviewable by the initial creator. > I don't think you need to be that restrictive. Everything works best if many volunteers feel empowered to improve the work of others. > I don't have a good handle on which country hosts the Apache servers, but I > have mostly dealt with servers in the USA. I can barely comment on the laws > in the USA (where I live), much less those outside the USA. I do know that > in the USA, some content may not be referenced (such as a link to download > pirated software) that is perfectly fine to reference on a server in another > country. If this is done, however, there is precedent to hold the site owner > liable for content posted by another. > > I have no idea what the ramifications are for claiming trademark when you > don't have it, but based on what I know about Rob, I have an expectation > that he is far more in tune with this than I (even if he does not live in > the USA). > I do live in the US, in Massachusetts. Regards, -Rob > -- > Andrew Pitonyak > My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt > Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php >
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
If content is noticed and there is concern that there may be legal ramifications, it seems reasonable that the content would be immediately modified before review, which is what was done. So if I seem something that is wrong, should I fix it, or should I ask the person that made the initial error to fix it? Are there specific guidelines for this? Off hand, your comments lead me to believe that I should not modify existing content, I should always have the initial committer do it. Note that I have stuck pretty close to this so far -- so now you know one reason that I have not modified any of our existing documentation; our process does not allow for modifications reviewable by the initial creator. I don't have a good handle on which country hosts the Apache servers, but I have mostly dealt with servers in the USA. I can barely comment on the laws in the USA (where I live), much less those outside the USA. I do know that in the USA, some content may not be referenced (such as a link to download pirated software) that is perfectly fine to reference on a server in another country. If this is done, however, there is precedent to hold the site owner liable for content posted by another. I have no idea what the ramifications are for claiming trademark when you don't have it, but based on what I know about Rob, I have an expectation that he is far more in tune with this than I (even if he does not live in the USA). -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: -1 >>> >>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious >>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. >> >> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! >> A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask >> the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this >> together. OK. > > IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over > one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it > because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, > right? Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided convincing rationale to the community... >>> >>> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >>> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >>> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >>> and did not act quickly. >> >> I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially >> unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with >> that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you >> intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't >> revert other's commits in the future... >> > > Obviously I believed that time was critical here. You may disagree. > That's fine. But I hope you would agree that there are some things > where time is critical, and that those with knowledge in the area, > rather than bystanders, are the ones to make that call. > Just to be explicit here, since the impact of this choice seems to have escaped several on this list, I have serious concerns about claiming a registered trademark invalidly. With patents, for example, it is illegal to claim a patent on something unless you actually have one [1]. The US government shares part of the fines with those who detect and report these kinds of things. So there are lawyers who go around trying to find such things, even if they are innocent mistakes, and report them, as their business model [2]. This is true even if done innocently and temporarily, e.g., remaining stock of a product that claims a patent after the patent has expired. I want to be absolutely sure that we don't call into a similar situation with trademark clams. I don't know if I am right or wrong here. But I did my research and I think I'm right. So I'm putting the legal protection of the ASF ahead of concerns about egos. Regards, -Rob [1] http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/general_info_concerning_patents.jsp#heading-29 [2] http://patentlaw.jmbm.com/2011/06/patent-false-marking-claims-pr.html > -Rob > >> --tim
Re: Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> -1 >> >> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious >> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. > > Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! > A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask > the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this > together. OK. IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, right? >>> >>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You >>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided >>> convincing rationale to the community... >> >> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >> and did not act quickly. > > I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially > unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with > that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you > intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't > revert other's commits in the future... > Obviously I believed that time was critical here. You may disagree. That's fine. But I hope you would agree that there are some things where time is critical, and that those with knowledge in the area, rather than bystanders, are the ones to make that call. -Rob > --tim
Reverting commits [was: Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> -1 > > I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious > repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. >>> >>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over >>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it >>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, >>> right? >> >> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You >> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided >> convincing rationale to the community... > > Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar > circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong > then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right > and did not act quickly. I'm not sure what to say. By "uncool" I meant, it's socially unacceptable around here (the ASF) and, yet, your not only ok with that but you'd "do it again". The timeliness wasn't as grave as you intimate - some reasonable time could have been allowed. Please don't revert other's commits in the future... --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: > Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is > room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to > make an adjustment. > > If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is ok. My point is > about letting time pass. > Dave, you did not respond in two weeks to the Bugzilla issue where I made the same objection. https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121624 Sorry if if I did not sit around for 2 hours on my Friday evening to see if you were paying attention. Could communications have been better on this? Yes, certainly. But the important thing is we've now escalated this to get a definitive answer. -Rob > You do a lot for OpenOffice and that is great! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> -1 >> >> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious >> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. > > Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! > A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask > the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this > together. OK. IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, right? >>> >>> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You >>> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided >>> convincing rationale to the community... >> >> Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar >> circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong >> then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right >> and did not act quickly. >> >> -Rob >> >>> >>> --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
Two hours with a wrong (R) if it is wrong won't invalidate anything. There is room for a mistake. Please just disagree and let me be responsible enough to make an adjustment. If I had not responded in a few hours then what you did is ok. My point is about letting time pass. You do a lot for OpenOffice and that is great! Sent from my iPhone On Feb 2, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> -1 > > I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious > repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. >>> >>> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over >>> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it >>> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, >>> right? >> >> Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You >> raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided >> convincing rationale to the community... > > Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar > circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong > then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right > and did not act quickly. > > -Rob > >> >> --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Tim Williams wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > -1 I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. >>> >>> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A >>> full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the >>> committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. >> >> IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over >> one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it >> because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, >> right? > > Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You > raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided > convincing rationale to the community... Then count me uncool then. I did it and I'd do it again in similar circumstances. It is easier to apologize to David later If I'm wrong then for us to have the trademark legally invalidated if I was right and did not act quickly. -Rob > > --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: -1 >>> >>> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious >>> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. >> >> Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A >> full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the >> committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. >> > > IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over > one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it > because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, > right? Nope. It's universally uncool to revert someone else's commit. You raised the -1, let *them* do the revert, after you've provided convincing rationale to the community... --tim
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >>> -1 >>> >> >> I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious >> repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. > > Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A > full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the > committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. > IMHO, the sociable thing is not to feel such exclusive ownership over one's commit that one would be offended if someone else reverted it because they thought it was harmful. We are all in this together, right? > +1 on your change to my commit. > > Go ahead and get an opinion from trademarks@. I think that they will say that > this fits a registered trademark other than the US trademark. For example the > one in China. A clarification is needed, but not on legal-discuss. > I've read over the Chinese registration, via Google translates, and I don't see it applying to websites. But perhaps someone on trademarks@ has some better Chinese legal advice. Regards, -Rob > Best Regards, > Dave > >> >> -Rob >> >>> Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know >>> you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your >>> intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually >>> risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark >>> registration is explicitly for software, not for a website. >>> >>> So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't >>> want to mess around with trademark fraud. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: The next shed to bike ;-) On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote: > Author: wave > Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 > New Revision: 1441659 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev > Log: > No clear link back to www.openoffice.org > > Modified: > openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext > > Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff > == > --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original) > +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 > 2013 > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ > - [License](/license.html) > - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html) > - [Press](/press.html) > + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/) > + > # Community > > - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html) > > >
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: >> -1 >> > > I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious > repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. Not exactly. You left the link which was the main thing I wanted to add! A full revert would have been anti-social. The sociable thing is to ask the committer to do it. It's their commit and we are all in this together. OK. +1 on your change to my commit. Go ahead and get an opinion from trademarks@. I think that they will say that this fits a registered trademark other than the US trademark. For example the one in China. A clarification is needed, but not on legal-discuss. Best Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know >> you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your >> intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually >> risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark >> registration is explicitly for software, not for a website. >> >> So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't >> want to mess around with trademark fraud. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -Rob >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> The next shed to bike ;-) >>> >>> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote: >>> Author: wave Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 New Revision: 1441659 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev Log: No clear link back to www.openoffice.org Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff == --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original) +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ - [License](/license.html) - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html) - [Press](/press.html) + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/) + # Community - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html) >>>
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > -1 > I've reverted that commit. Getting this wrong could have serious repercussions, so let's make sure we get it right. -Rob > Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know > you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your > intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually > risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark > registration is explicitly for software, not for a website. > > So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't > want to mess around with trademark fraud. > > Thanks. > > -Rob > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> The next shed to bike ;-) >> >> On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote: >> >>> Author: wave >>> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 >>> New Revision: 1441659 >>> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev >>> Log: >>> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org >>> >>> Modified: >>>openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext >>> >>> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext >>> URL: >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff >>> == >>> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original) >>> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 >>> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ >>> - [License](/license.html) >>> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html) >>> - [Press](/press.html) >>> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/) >>> + >>> # Community >>> >>> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html) >>> >>> >>
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
-1 Could we please take this to legal-discuss, or to Trademarks@? I know you think you are protecting the OpenOffice.org trademark. So your intentions are good. But I'm pretty sure that you are actually risking the trademark by applying it to the website when the trademark registration is explicitly for software, not for a website. So let's revert that until we get further clarification. You don't want to mess around with trademark fraud. Thanks. -Rob On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > The next shed to bike ;-) > > On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote: > >> Author: wave >> Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 >> New Revision: 1441659 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev >> Log: >> No clear link back to www.openoffice.org >> >> Modified: >>openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext >> >> Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext >> URL: >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff >> == >> --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original) >> +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 >> @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ >> - [License](/license.html) >> - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html) >> - [Press](/press.html) >> + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/) >> + >> # Community >> >> - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html) >> >> >
Re: svn commit: r1441659 - /openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext
The next shed to bike ;-) On Feb 1, 2013, at 3:21 PM, w...@apache.org wrote: > Author: wave > Date: Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 > New Revision: 1441659 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1441659&view=rev > Log: > No clear link back to www.openoffice.org > > Modified: >openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext > > Modified: openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext?rev=1441659&r1=1441658&r2=1441659&view=diff > == > --- openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext (original) > +++ openoffice/site/trunk/templates/sidenav.mdtext Fri Feb 1 23:21:23 2013 > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ > - [License](/license.html) > - [Trademarks](/trademarks.html) > - [Press](/press.html) > + - [OpenOffice.org®](http://www.openoffice.org/) > + > # Community > > - [Get Involved](/get-involved.html) > >
