Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com On 18 Jun 2011, at 11:35, Florian Effenberger wrote: Jim Jagielski wrote on 2011-06-15 17.28: Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote the content and they are responsible for the content on the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure at all. so, how would you write things to be understandable much better? I'm really curious to hear how the perception could be made better... (seriously asking, not meant with bad intentions How about changing the text in the footer that reads: LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered trademarks. Their respective logos and icons are subject to international copyright laws. The use of these therefore is subject to our trademark policy. to read: The project names LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered trademarks of their host, [http://www.frodev.org Freies Office Deutschland e.V.], a non-profit organisation registered in Germany. The respective logos and icons used by these projects are also subject to international copyright laws. Use of any of them is subject to the [http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy trademark policy]. +1. I would have written something similar but you beat me to it ;-) Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice +US Gov't ECCN Export Control
- Original Message From: Robert Burrell Donkin robertburrelldon...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Sat, June 18, 2011 10:19:41 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice +US Gov't ECCN Export Control On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Uwe Altmann o...@altsys.de wrote: Hi Garry Am 17.06.11 23:45, schrieb NoOp: In the past I'd answered a few questions regarding OOo ECCN[1] and pointed the poster to Sun's ECCN[2]. What are the implications for LO general with regards to ECCN? I do see that Novell/Attachmate Group do list an ECCN for LO[3] with a category of 5D992. Given that questions eventually will come up regarding LO ECCN by US Government/Business users,... As I can see, the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) is an issue dealing with /exports from US/. AFAIK LO is not a US Product nor exported from within US (not even hosted there) and therefore this should be a no-issue :-) AIUI it would be a good idea for the TDF to consult it's US legal team about whether this is really the case... Very much so, especially since from what Export Control training I have had, even a patch from a developer in the US would be considered an export to TDF/LO and thereby require an export license. IANAL, and that may fly under the radar easily; but it is something to have the legal team consider. Ben P.S. Technically, by that same training, even a conversation with a non-US citizen is considered an export of information. Obviously not every export can necessarily be controlled. However, it may be wise to have patches and such reviewed to ensure things don't run afoul - e.g. by a developer submitting a patch that is export controlled (e.g. encryption). Again, IANAL; that is just how I've been trained on Export Control. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it. - Original Message From: plino pedl...@gmail.com BRM wrote: Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the written offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source. It's amazing how you distort arguments to keep your own perspective. What the GPL says is that whoever gives you a copy of the program is also obliged to give you the written offer. They can not be separated. your friend must give you a copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary I don't understand how you can quote something that says the opposite of what you are trying to prove! Here's the mythical situation: Group A makes a product - B - that is under the GPL. Group C takes that product and makes product 'D' - also under the GPL - but only releases it to their customers for a fee. (Perfectly valid!) Group C provides the written notice to said customers; but does not make it publically available to non-customers. (Perfectly valid!) Customer E provides a copy with written notice to Party F. Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E. The above is what the FSF states - in what I referenced - is required. Now, suppose there is another party in the mythical situation: Customer E also provide a copy _without_ written notice to Party G. Customer E violated the GPL by not providing the written notice to Party G; however, as a result Party G has no recourse against Group C. Their recourse is first against Customer E for not providing the written notice; at which point they can then approach Group C just like Party F did. However in both cases, if a Party H who has not received any distribution from Group C either directly (e.g. Customer E) or indirectly (e.g. Party F and Party G) decides they want a copy of the source for product D produced by Group C then the GPL has not taken effect - there was no distribution involved with respect to Party H, and Group C owes nothing to Party H. Remember, GPL only takes affect at point of Distribution. That does not mean that Group C may not be honorable and provide the source for product 'D' to Party H any way, but there is no requirement in the GPL to do so. BTW - the FSF also addresses the issue of if Party H obtained a distribution illegally, and states that Party H in such case may have to wait until they exit prison to be able to then be act on the distribution clause. (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy) I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking for the source must also have the written notice. It may not be a popular view - in that you all may not like it. That does not necessarily mean that it is therefore incorrect - it is quite correct with regards to reading the GPL, and the various information the FSF has published on it. So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the sun does not mean they are in violation of the GPL. Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid The _written offer_ must be provided and valid for any third party who has received the distribution. If you haven't received the distribution directly or indirectly then it is not valid for you as no distribution was involved. Indeed, you can also look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary - it only has to be available to the users. Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF, Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the authors of the GPL. That doesn't mean that 'gpl-violations.org' is not providing a useful service, or don't necessarily have a very good understanding of the license. But they are primarily acting on behalf of people that do have that written offer, or are helping to enforce that people receive that written offer when one was not made. If a company is in compliance - even if it is not a way that you necessarily like - then there is nothing gpl-violations.org can do - they are in compliance. As it is you haven't even quoted anything from them to refute what I have said - and there is nothing on their website about it either. Still, they are less authoritative on the matter than FSF, Lessig, and SFLC - from which I _have_ quoted, and extensively at that. Sorry to burst your bubble. From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com So, what you are telling me is that if a manufacturer is already violating the GPL, then a third party cannot ask for the source code? Is this a claim that the GPL is not enforceable
Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
- Original Message From: plino pedl...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Fri, June 17, 2011 10:12:01 AM Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice) @BRM sorry to burst your fantasy world... We are not discussing some theoretical situation with A, B, C, D, etc No, that is just to help aid the conversation on the actual topic which you seem to have lost. Please go back and read the archives. This topic and this forum is about a PUBLIC free office suite (yes, I noticed you deliberately ignored my argument) And no, I never ignored that portion of your argument. The whole discussion (so summarize) - which you seem to have lost - is what happens if someone takes a copy of that PUBLIC free office suite called TDF/LO and makes their own version of it, making a non-public release - a release similar to a closed source one that only goes to their customers - and what then happens to the changes, and who has standing to get the source - even under the GPL. In other words, what is to prevent IBM, Oracle, or any other similar company from making a derivation of TDF/LO and only it to their own customers? The argument presented against the ASL was that they could do that and that the GPL guarenteed that the community would get the source back from them; and the point is that it does not do that - only that their customers get that right, not the community - not TDF/LO. In this case the GPL clearly says that the written license MUST be distributed with the program. Period. I have never disputed that. It also says that a binary only distribution must be provided with a written offer to obtain the source, implying that the written offer is in addition to the copy of the license. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: On Jun 17, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Michael Meeks wrote: The overlap between TDF ASF's goals for an office product (modulo enabling 'mixed-source') is a pretty compelling proof of competition. I disagree... competition implies a winner and a loser... in FOSS, how do you measure that? Market Share? Feh. When you start looking at it that way, then what makes FOSS FOSS kinda gets overlooked. The intent of FOSS is not to take over but to instead provide freedom and choices to end-users. If having 2 competing implementations means that a larger set of end-users will enjoy those freedoms and choices than if there was only 1 implementation, then the competition is most valid. It's being complementary, not competitive. I think it is a helpful exercise to have a starting position that forks are bad. They might be necessary and useful sometimes, like war, but that doesn't make them ideal. And TDF/LO is the real fork in this case. In your opinion it would have been a necessary fork, but it is the fork nonetheless. Any argument otherwise is revisionist history. This is not like KOffice because that codebase is so different and missing lots of features. No one is arguing to get rid of KOffice here, or that a merge would be possible or makes sense.This is only about very slightly different versions of a 10M line codebase. No it is not. But KOffice does provide a very good example of this. KOffice recently had a fork - Calligra - that most all of the development team moved to as the KOffice proper was not being properly managed. Very similar to to the OOo vs TDF/LO situation. Yet, Calligra and KOffice - which both have very similar codebases - have a much healthier relationship, etc. They don't see themselves as competing with each other either. Another way to think about it: what features does Apache want that LibreOffice does *not* want? Ubuntu forked Debian because they wanted 6-month release cycles, proprietary drivers, etc. I see no list. Even if you had a list of features LibreOffice didn't want, you could include the code in LibreOffice and turn it off by default. OpenOffice could be LibreOffice with different defaults. I don't think there is anything like that either. The real question is - since TDF/LO is the real fork, what does LibreOffice want that Oracle did not, and that Apache does not? And that is primarily the LGPL+MPL. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
- Original Message From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it. ... Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E. I think your misconception arises from the fact that you consider a company can collude with the customers and ask them to keep secret those written notices they received. Without these written notices, a third party would not be able to get the source code? It's not a written notice; it is a written offer by a company to make available the source code to anyone who asks. I never said they were colluding. No collusion was required, and no one need deny they were providing GPL'd products. If you want, you could change out every group/party/company in that scenario to be individual people - it doesn't change a thing wrt to the GPL. It also doesn't entitle someone who has not received a copy of the product to receiving a copy of the source code. ... I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking for the source must also have the written notice. You are describing a company that tries to get away with the responsibilities of the GPL by denying that they have made a written offer for the source code, by colluding with customers not to divulge the mention of the GPL in the said products. So, if I go and buy one such GPL product from the company, would the company refuse to sell me in order not to export the written offer? If you have a the GPL'd product, then you have the right to get the source. If not, you don't. If you received it second hand - e.g. indirectly - then you still have the right to the source, but you may have to show the product or written offer. So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the sun does not mean they are in violation of the GPL. Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid Which says: “If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.” It's the opposite of what you have just said. No, it implies (or rather, another FAQ entry - I forget which off hand - states) that you need the written offer as well. So as long as you provide a copy of the written offer, they are required to provide it to you. Said written offer being acquired either directly or indirectly. ... Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF, Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the authors of the GPL. Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make the effort to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views there. Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common misconception on the issue. It's not a mainstream view that GPL'd software be charged for too (people - especially GPL people - like getting stuff for free as in beer) - yet, FSF states that's perfectly acceptable to do as its not about Free as in beer (that's a good thing) but free as in speech. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: plino pedl...@gmail.com Greg Stein wrote: how can you say that Apache removes rights from people's contributions? As a developer, you still own your code. You can do whatever you like with it. Apache doesn't take anything from You. Easy. Even a non-developer like myself can see that :) Compared to GPL (which is what Apache is asking developers to give up on) it removes the right to be given back any improvement or fix to the code you contributed. Since many people are doing this pro bono, I think that it is fair that at least they retain the right to have access to any fix or improvement to their code. Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could take a GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally to itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole. Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers, making the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never see any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source licenses - even the GPL. Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that. So please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside. GPL, like all Open Source licenses, is about the end-user NOT the developer. Yes, there are a lot of developers that are also end-users, and developers are required to help make Open Source open source, but ultimately it is about providing a product to end-users with the same rights, etc that you had to start with. Now, granted, the Apache License is more liberal in that it allows companies to not have to pass on those same rights; that is the difference - it doesn't require that they also make the source available to the end-user. So IBM is free to develop Symphony without having to provide source to the end-users. But there is nothing preventing them from having Symphony derived from LibreOffice under the LGPL and not providing any changes back to LibreOffice either; they only have to provide the source (in that case) to the end-users _upon request_ for up to 3 years for each version they release from the time they make the sale. (See the GPL license.) Under the Apache license any company can take your code, fix it and say: Hey, this function in the open source version doesn't work. I just spend a day fixing it (instead of months to write it from scratch). Why don't you buy mine which works? They can do that under the GPL too. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: plino pedl...@gmail.com BRM wrote: Even the GPL does not provide that right. If a company wanted it could take a GPL product, make whatever changes it wanted, and distribute it internally to itself without ever contributing back to the community as a whole. Likewise, it could also distribute that same project to its customers, making the source available to them and them alone. The community will may never see any changes from them; yet that is perfectly valid under all Open Source licenses - even the GPL. Nothing forces people to work with the community. No license can do that. So please do yourself a favor and put that notion - the myth - aside. So basically GPL is worth nothing because no one can force anybody to contribute back? Is that an argument in favor of convincing developers to use the Apache license (because they aren't getting anything back anyway) or to simply stop contributing to Open Source projects? No. I am merely pointing out the fallacy in what we being said. To many people assume that GPL means contribute back to the community when it does not. So to argue forcing people to contribute back under any FLOSS license is 100% wrong, when the topic should be about the rights of the end-users - GPL guarantees them while Apache and other permissive licenses do not necessarily do so - in most all cases I am aware of they do not at all. IOW, if you are going to argue differences in the license and reasons to go one way or the other, at least get your facts straight about the license and its implications. Then you can have a proper debate on the merits of which one to go with. BTW, I typically lean towards using the GPL/LGPL myself. However, that won't stop me from contributing to BSD/Apache licensed projects either - or even projects governed by ICLA/CLA/etc (so long as they don't inhibit my abilities to work on other projects under other licenses). Each license has its use; and each community has their favored license. TDF/LO favors LGPL/GPL; Apache favors the more permissive Apache License. So far as I am concerned, with certain exceptions (e.g. MS Public License) as long as the license is approved by the Open Source Initiative as being a proper Open Source license - requirements being derived from the early Debian Social Contract - then what does it matter as long as the users can make an informed decision? - that is, if they don't like IBM Symphony they can make the decision to use Apache's OOo or any derived product, or even LO (since you guys have at least expressed the concept that you are truly an OOo fork and don't want to be seen as a derived product from OOo/ApacheOOo). That is just me - and I know many on this list will disagree, that is their right. Ben P.S. On the other hand, I get really pissed at companies like March Hare Software, Ltd. that have taken open source - even GPL licensed - software and essentially made them proprietary. It is very hard to move off of CVSNT to a proper CVS install, or even to another system (e.g. SVN, git) because of the changes they have made and the non-availability of the source. Yet, they support projects like TortoiseCVS so that users can continue to use CVSNT. (http://www.evscm.org/modules/Downloads/) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 3:13:15 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote: In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the same as releasing the modifications you made??? Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I gave a binary to. That is not the same as the community making the software. I think you missed the public free Office Suite bit. In that case the people you gave the binary to is anyone who wants it, which would include the developers if they want to use the source code. So in this case, in practice, having the code as GPL means you must give the code back to the developers, or rather you must make the code available for the developers to get for themselves. This is the situation software suites like IBM's would have fallen under. Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may not. They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from. Someone could take TDF/LO and make changes and do the same thing - only release to their paying customers. And they only have to give the source to one of those paying customers - not anyone that comes along and asks for it. Granted, if _one_ of those paying customers asked for the source they would then have the rights to pass it back to TDF/LO, but you cannot rely on that happening. Their paying customers are guaranteed that right by the GPL; but that GPL grants _you_ as the developer nothing other than that. So as Greg said, who has the rights (per the GPL) to receive the source is not necessarily the same as the community. The only people that have rights to receiving the source are the ones that the product was specifically distributed to. If you are are not someone that received the product distributed by them, then you have no rights to receive the source - plain simple. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
- Original Message From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Thu, June 16, 2011 6:31:25 PM Subject: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice) On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com wrote: ... The key thing being that person. That person is most likely not You, the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get those changes unless that person decides to pass them back to you. So you don't necessarily have a right to the code. You are relying on the goodwill of that person to help you out. Of course, they might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not ever ask for the source code. It's a common misconception. If a TV uses Linux (most LCD/LED TV use Linux), you do not need to show evidence you bought one in order to ask for the Linux source code. See the GPLv2 (per Linux kernel) license text, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt “Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give **any third party**, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,” That written offer goes to the recipient (your statement comes from 3(b), which is dependent upon the primary part of (3), which talks about distributions to a recipient). The recipient does not need to transfer or pass that offer to third parties. Here is the full sentence, omitting some details for clarity: a. You [i.e. manufacturer, etc] may copy and distribute the Program, b. in object code or executable form c. provided that you also d. accompany it with a written offer e. to give **any** third party f. a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code Again, you're relying on the goodwill of the recipient to get changes returned. Anyone can get a copy of the source code for copyleft software. Please read: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource Directly from the FSF, authors of the GPL. You must have a copy of the written offer in order to be entitled to receipt of the source. Tell me which LCD/LED TV you have (brand, model), and I'll get for you the source code (of the copyleft) software. Only if you also have a copy of the written offer are they required to do so. See above. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Greg Stein wrote on 2011-06-14 17.09: It is simply that newbie's have NO UNDERSTANDING of this. Florian had to explain all the details because they are not on the website. I guess the truth lies in between. :-) Indeed, we seem to lack some comprehensible page directly reachable with all the details. However, we have been regular announcing status and facts via e-mail, our blog, social networks, and the donations (challenge) page has also some background on it. My primary point is that to side-line the discussion (of which Greg was responding to, and I assume you are too) the text at the bottom of each webpage on the LO website which presently reads as follows: Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPLv3). LibreOffice and The Document Foundation are registered trademarks. Their respective logos and icons are subject to international copyright laws. The use of these therefore is subject to our trademark policy. should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks, etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal entity, and not something that is simply a project put together by a lot of people without any legal standing. (The above was specifically taken from the http://www.documentfoundation.org/faq/ webpage.) Note: I am not saying anything about the actual legal standing of TDF in this e-mail; just pointing out how that legal standing could be _better_ communicated to by-standers and visitors of the TDF/LO websites - of which there are many more than are known by the community, or participate in the community - e.g. reporters that go on the website for some tidbit of information, or someone looking to simply download LO for use. $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
It's also not located on _every_ page on the TDF/LO websites. The text I quoted is, and the change I called for would be. Ben - Original Message From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Wed, June 15, 2011 11:28:33 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice Maybe it's a language issue, but no, the imprint does nothing at all to make it clear. It simply says, in effect, FroDev wrote the content and they are responsible for the content on the site. It says nothing at all about the legal structure at all. On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:54 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, BRM wrote on 2011-06-15 15.47: should be updated to reflect the legal reality that while TDF is being setup it is an sub-entity of FroDeV; listing out who specifically owns the trademarks, etc. That would go a long way in saying TDF is or is backed by an actual legal hm, isn't this the exact information contained in the imprint? It reads: [...] The party responsible for the content of this website is: Freies Office Deutschland e.V. Riederbergstr. 92 65195 Wiesbaden Deutschland/Germany E-mail address: i...@frodev.org Website: http://www.frodev.org Vertretungsberechtigter Vorstand/Board of Directors: Thomas Krumbein (Vorsitzender), Jacqueline Rahemipour, Florian Effenberger (Anschrift jeweils wie oben) [...] Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Uwe Altmann o...@altsys.de Am 10.06.11 15:55, schrieb BRM: You know, usually when an organization (such as TDF) is legally owned by another organization … I know it is difficult to understand if you're not in (german) legal affairs: TDF once fonded as Stiftung (=foundation) will be on it's own right and nor belong to not been owned by nobody but itself. What we see now for transitional purposes is the solution of the hen and egg-problem: You'll need a founder to found a foundation - and that is FrODeV. For whatever reason, no one seemed to get the point I was making in that e-mail, so I will respond once and leave it - I was not saying that TDF does not exist, or anything else. I was making the observation that TDF's website materials make little mention of the fact that FroDeV is involved. Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim it would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs relation with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all mentioned on every page on the TDF website. Again, just $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com On Jun 13, 2011, at 12:17 PM, David Nelson wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 22:18, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: I was making the observation that TDF's website materials make little mention of the fact that FroDeV is involved. Therefore, to help reduce the comments by those that _do_ make that claim it would be beneficial for TDF to update its website to make reference to the existing legal status in the normal fashion of listing FroDeV and TDFs relation with it in the little section where the copyright/trademarks/etc are all mentioned on every page on the TDF website. It's my feeling that people who have been following and contributing to the project are pretty well aware of which organization is handling the founding. Not to beat a dead horse, but I think BRM's point wasn't directed towards those who know, but rather instead the large percentage of people out there who don't. There was, and still is, the perception that TDF is an official, fully- setup, self-controlled and self-existing foundation (similar to what the ASF is). That perception was beneficial during all the discussion and debate since it implied that, as far as legal-status was concerned, TDF == The ASF and so the discussion was able to be distilled down to copyleft vs non-copyleft FOSS (as far as which foundation was better for OOo)... I am sure that someone on this list will see the above as some sort of slam against TDF, but it's simply my interpretation of what BRM was trying to say. +1 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Thu, June 9, 2011 5:56:38 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice On 9 Jun 2011, at 19:47, Simon Brouwer wrote: Anyway, I think it is high time that TDF be made a foundation proper. Suppose Oracle had considered donating the OpenOffice.org trademarks and copyrights to TDF. How could it be the recipient of such a donation if it didn't exist as a legal entity? Really easily. Either the current legal entity by which TDF will be incorporated, Freies Office Deutschland eV, could accept the donation, or the US agent retained by them, Software in the Public Interest (SPI) could accept it on their behalf (as will still be the case once TDF is incorporated - TDF will not need a US subsidiary in order to accept donations, because of SPI). Time for this does not exist meme to end, it is baseless and it is unhelpful to perpetuate it after so many people have explained that fact. You know, usually when an organization (such as TDF) is legally owned by another organization you list it at the bottom of the web-page where you are stating information about copyright, trademarks, etc - e.g. TDF is a wholly owned by FroDEV. As it is, looking over TDF's website, the only place I can really find any information related to FroDEV is on through the link by Impressum (Legal Info), not in the text next to it, not on the contact info, not on the link describing the Foundation. To me, that says TDF at minimum trying to distance itself from FroDEV - not necessarily your intention, but that's how it comes across. It also doesn't give confidence that TDF is a legal entity or owned by a signular legal entity as you are stating. Clearly marking the website, signatures, etc. for TDF would probably go a long ways in helping to end that conversation. $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
- Original Message From: Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com On the other hand, ASF members should start building their opinions about TDF from other sources than the rumors spread by individuals who, for personal reasons, do not like TDF (you can find any flavour of them around the Internet, and some of them have signed as committers). Like all the venom towards Oracle, OOo, and ASF that has been spewed by TDF members and contributors on this topic over the last few days? I'm more of an outside observer on all of this, and have tried to keep up on the topic to see where things go, but there's not much better way to put it (sadly). TDF as an organization did respond well to the announcement, but the TDF/LO community has not, and you don't have to look to IBM or Oracle or anyone else to see that; which is quite sad. It's not a matter of rumor - just read the archives. I'm quite pleased to see the ASF members (at least here) not taking offense but continuing to act very diplomatically throughout all of this. (That said, I haven't paid nearly as much attention to the Apache Mailing Lists.) $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?
- Original Message From: Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com On 5/17/11 4:17 PM, BRM wrote: Personally I hope Oracle doesn't drop the ball on it and that OpenOffice proper can become a true community lead project as I haven't yet seen anything from the leadership of TDF to give me confidence they are not doing the same thing they blamed Oracle for, just in a slightly different fashion. (Thus why I've been lurking more.) Being a member of the Steering Committee of TDF, and having some problems in understanding the meaning of your sentence, may I ask you to be more specific on the same thing they blamed Oracle for? Thanks. Since you asked... As I participated in a number of discussions early on, I noticed a lot of things where the founding people just rammed through their opinion without really listening to the community. In some cases, the community decision was aligned with the members, but they stilled didn't take to the decision through the community but through what they wanted so it the decision seemed more forced on the community than decided by the community even in those cases - e.g. go back and read the Copyright Assignment discussion. So while I do hope that the TDF leadership does start listening to the community, etc. I have yet to see that really happen any better than Oracle was doing. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?
- Original Message From: Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org To: BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Wed, May 18, 2011 5:34:38 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried? BRM wrote: In some cases, the community decision was aligned with the members, but they stilled didn't take to the decision through the community but through what they wanted so it the decision seemed more forced on the community than decided by the community even in those cases well, the thing with decision making is that invariably, you'll make people unhappy - that said, the canonical answer to your problem is, strive for, and apply for membership. In contrast to the OOo project, members collectively have a true say here. - e.g. go back and read the Copyright Assignment discussion. Um - surely that's a bad example for deciding against the community - since all of the developer community made it abundantly clear that they don't like copyright assignment so much? ;) You missed the point. That was actually an example where they made the right decision but for the wrong reason. Yes the developers were overwhelmingly for not having any copyright assignment; however, the 3 people founding TDF at the time decided long before the community came to that decision not to do it and didn't really even listen to the community, participate beneficially in the discussion, etc. So as I said, the decision seemed forced upon the community rather than decided by the community even though the community did agree on that issue. On the other hand, there were discussions regarding the GO-OO patches as well as whether or not to support writing OOXML - topics that were sidelined in favor of a decision by the same 3 people rather than listening to the community. So again, decisions that affect the community - some of which have potentially legal impacts and pitfalls - were decided not by the community but forced by a couple people. While I was originally optimistic that TDF/LO would be better than Sun/Oracle OOo, as a result I have yet to see that happen. That's not to say it isn't happening or the community isn't taking over - I'm just waiting a bit longer to see. So for now yes, I continue to use OOo. If TDF/LO shows it is truly a community project and not ruled by a benevolent few that are forcing the hands of the community, then I will likely switch over and start participating more - until then I shall continue to watch. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?
- Original Message From: Alexander Thurgood alex.thurg...@gmail.com Le 17/05/11 12:49, plino a écrit : What do they mean by handing it back? Are they giving up on the OpenOffice brand? Can someone from TDF shed some light? Nobody seems to know, or if they do, they are keeping wraps on it. The people still around on the openoffice.org lists are equally at a loss as to what is really going on. Oracle has just shutdown comms. On the German OOo discuss list, some people have been alluding to the fact that the lights are being switched off in Hamburg where the majority of OOo development took place, and I have noticed a distinct reduction of input from Oracle employees on the OOo lists for a while now, not a complete lack, but certainly a significant reduction bordering on the void. Not saying that this is related at all, but the timing was rather interesting on the whole situation. I was at a conference in late March where a presenter talked about OpenOffice and LibreOffice for business uses; a couple Oracle folks were there. Over the course of it, we ended up mentioning the Copyright Assignment issue and the LibreOffice would be able to get updates from OpenOffice but not vice versa as a result - at least those two employees were not aware of that issue. So, don't know what's happening, and not saying that's related at all, but it was just very interesting timing overall. Personally I hope Oracle doesn't drop the ball on it and that OpenOffice proper can become a true community lead project as I haven't yet seen anything from the leadership of TDF to give me confidence they are not doing the same thing they blamed Oracle for, just in a slightly different fashion. (Thus why I've been lurking more.) Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising
- Original Message From: toki toki.kant...@gmail.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 02/08/2011 04:36 PM, BRM wrote: Why resort to deception and Microsoft-esque tactics to promote LO? FWIW, it isn't uncommon for 501(c)3 organizations to have a for-profit organization operating at an arm's length. Microsoft-esque only if you think that a 501(c)(3) organization should pay corporate income tax on all the revenue it generates. Depending upon how much revenue is generated from sources other than grants and donations, for the US at least, serious consideration needs to be given to establishing a for-profit that operates at an arm's length. If you make the connection between the two organization extremely clear, then there is no issue. The deception comes when one organization tries to use the other to say/do something while both are trying to pretend the two are not related. That is what I am referring to. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Foundation Fundraising
- Original Message From: Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com On 8 February 2011 11:34, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Hi, thanks for your contributions, great to see things moving! :-) Well, I think opening an US bank account is problematic at least from the time perspective, but maybe also from a legal PoV - our association might not be eligible to do so, as we are accredited in Germany and have special tax rules applied here. Jonathan Aquilina wrote on 2011-02-08 10.18: Is the TDF an NGO. If its based in the EU the organization can possibly get a lot of funding from the EU itself. IIRC, the EU only funds existing entities, i.e. they will only fund us when the Foundation itself exists. That is correct. One avenue would be to create a company limited by guarantee or Community Interest Company in the UK - costs about 50 Euro and then use that to raise money to set up the German Foundation after say a year and just transfer any surplus money. Note that for EU grants you have to submit accounts so probably you need a years operation to generate those. So the earlier the better. Of course there are some advantages to having two sister companies since they could be partners in an EU project. That could even be a deliberate strategy. You could then get money for study visits and mobilities between them. Organise a preparatory meeting at one and you have the potential for people from other countries to get paid by their NA to attend the meeting. You could even set up a thematic network with funding for partners to travel meet and discuss things. Why resort to deception and Microsoft-esque tactics to promote LO? That is all having two companies owned by the same collective would do. So while it may be expedient to setup one company for a short term to raise money in order to convert to the other in the future (no problem), if that is done then the first should be shut down upon conversion. Everything you mention, aside from the deceptive partnerships, can be done with one entity. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] purpose of this list?
- Original Message From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Wed, February 2, 2011 10:59:59 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] purpose of this list? Le Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:47:58 +0100, Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org a écrit : Hi, drew wrote on 2011-02-02 16.44: It must be pushing 100 mail lists by now is there really any reason not to setup a discuss @ tdf.org at this point, so that the international discuss @ libo.org could focus on the application? we're right now restructuring a few lists, and indeed plan to have a separate discuss@tdf and discuss@libo. Florian Well, do we want to have 2 discuss lists? We're going to have some more reading to do :-/ If TDF is only about LO then no. If, as numerous pages on the TDF website say, TDF will about more than LO, then yes - a separate list will be necessary as not everyone involved in LO will want to be involved with TDF and vice versa. For those that do want to be involved in both, then it is no more reading than present; but for those that only want to be involved in one or the other, then it will be less reading. $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] What features are missing when a JRE is missing in Windows ?
Haven't tried it, but at least at one point StarOffice/OpenOffice required the JRE to provide the help system. Ran into that a couple of times in the past. Don't know if that is still the issue with LO now or not. Ben - Original Message From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Sun, January 30, 2011 10:58:51 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] What features are missing when a JRE is missing in Windows ? In a nutshell, without java you will not have: - Base - The bibliographic database - Some wizards you find on File - Wizards - Many extensions, like languagetool - I think some file converters (not sure about this one) Cheers 2011/1/30 Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org: Hi The Windows installer completes succesfully but when running the LibreOffice launcher for the first time several warnings indicating this function ... won't work without a JRE... install a JRE and restart LibreOffice without going into specifics. Which features will be missing in such case ? Is it best to always have the JRE under Windows ? Thanks for any details, I couldn't find this in the release notes or existing docs. Cheers, Fabian -- LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/ ~ Fabián Rodríguez http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:MagicFab -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc
I think such a project would have to focus really on Windows and perhaps Mac. Most Linux systems use package management software, often vary different. Some (e.g. gentoo) do not have a GUI interface at all. And honestly, the only place this is really a problem is on Windows, with Mac as a runner up. I'm pretty sure there isn't an issue on any other platform. But as I said - it's really a project for another entity to take control of - whether another project managed by TDF, or by someone else entirely, like FreeDesktop.org. Ben - Original Message From: Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 12:19:31 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc One problem would be Linux i think with this approach. Instead of making a bundle for each specific distro i think we would have the package management GUI pop up of that particular distro and will automatically in the search put in Thunderbird for instance and will allow it to appear in front and then just click and install that way. Would love to hear some feed back from some of the big time devs on this project about doing this. On 1/5/11 6:13 PM, BRM wrote: I was about to suggest something along a similar line, and that fits perfectly well within it... Instead of bundling an email client with LibreOffice, I suggest as part of the installer the option be provided to download and install one. For instance, the installer could list an Email line which users could expand to show Thunderbird, selecting Thunderbird would then download the _latest_ Thunderbird release, and start its installer. That would, of course, require an Internet connection at the time the installer runs; but would save on the download space for everyone. It would also enable the installer to select the right locale installer for Thunderbird too (if necessary). The same could be done for Firefox/Opera/etc. Additionally, this approach would allow the installer to present several choices - e.g. Firefox vs. Opera; Thunderbird vs. Evolution. Now, taking that line of thinking - a separate project[1] to enable users to get OO/LO/Calligra/Thunderbird/Evolution/Firefox/etc via a single installer would probably be a great thing; and further having _plug-ins_ that would enable them to inter-operate would also be a great thing if that was desired, and it could be provided as part of the installer package. $0.02 Ben [1] I wouldn't make such an installer part of LO officially. May be another TDF project, or another entity all-together (FreeDesktop.org might be the best organization to handle it.) - Original Message From: Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Wed, January 5, 2011 11:43:52 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Co-working with Moz, etc Funny you mention it i just replied with a similar response about bundling said software as part of the downloadable installer. On 1/5/11 5:39 PM, Todd rme wrote: On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:32 AM, drewd...@baseanswers.com wrote: On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:11 +0100, Jonathan Aquilina wrote: If we are looking to promote this to corporations it will need to have one, and we could give them the option to install one. A home user might opt out of installing it if they don't want an email client Right - well, it depends to a degree on how you define it being part of the suite - in the case of LibreOfficeBox, which is the distribution DVD created by the OOoDev team, most of whom are also part of the LibreOffice team the disc includes Thunderbird - so at one level it is at least bundled together . (They also include SeaMonkey in that package.) Now there is no English version of that DVD, which I propose is where members of the English speaking community could get involved - it could be recreated in English. For that matter, using the LibreOfficeDVD project as a reference, other groups could form to create alternate bundles. Following the reference these groups need not be formal projects in TDF but could form as auxiliary projects. Anyway - it just seems to me that when this conversation comes up, as it does from time to time, that this approach never is brought up. Thanks Drew Rather than having other groups providing bundles, what about an alliance of a few groups that provide a single, comprehensive installer? For instance perhaps LibreOffice, Mozzila, Gimp, and Inkscape come together and release one installer with all those apps bundled in. It would be any single group or member responsible, instead an agreement between the groups to release it. Then on the respective websites they could release their own app, as well as the bundle
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format
- Original Message From: Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com On 1/3/2011 11:19 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Barbara, Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600, Barbara Dupreyb...@onr.com a écrit : On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote: Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto: [...] inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately, should not be a problem: OOo LibO implement the existing and used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007 and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience to its This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC 29300 also called OOXML. Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call simply MS XML proprietary formats. Davide They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble. Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really, Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1. Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean (although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad will against MS: it's a really important question. best, Thanks! Very interesting. It still doesn't seem safe to call these proprietary formats, though, even though the standard's documentation is seriously flawed. Not sure I buy that honourable way out part -- pragmatic, yes, face-saving, yes, but honorable? I'd have a hard time applying that term to what happened there! I really feel for you guys who were in the thick of it, trying to stop the juggernaut that was rolling over the process. While I do agree per your honourable comment... OOXML in any form[1] is certainly not standard, nor is it open. So what _would_ you call it if you were not going to call it what it really is (proprietary)? Honestly, we shouldn't be trying to be politically correct, but rather honest, if not bluntly so. Call out Microsoft on their lack of following even their own standard; it'll have a greater impact as the community rallies behind that instead of trying to be politically correct and let them get away with doing what they've done. A goose by any other name is still a goose. Ben [1] Even Microsoft makes no qualms about not following ISO OOXML or even giving you options so that you know you are writing ISO OOXML - transitional or strict. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
- Original Message From: Carl Symons carlsym...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 3:47:30 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/12/10 17:27, Larry Gusaas wrote: I will not support or use LibreOffice until it stops helping spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format. There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using ODF and open source formats. See the following: http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49t=2493p=169740#p169507 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101219121621828 ; Unless this changes I will strongly advocate in the support groups I participate the people stay with OpenOffice.org and not switch to LibreOffice. OOXML will spread anyway because MS Office 2007 and 2010 use this format by default. Nothing you can do about it I'm afraid MS may create documents in OOXML by default. LibO can read them too. Larry Gusaas' original point was to avoid helping MS with this anti-open scheme. LibO should not help MS ...spread OOXML by enabling writing in this file format... In other words, make it so that LibO can _read_ OOXML documents, but not _write/save as_ this format. Enable LibO to _write_ in MS' proprietary .doc format, but not their fake open format. It is not open. The intent of this fake file format is to damage open software applications. Agree. LibO should only read OOXML if anything at all. It is similar to what they did with web standards, their own special Java, their own special C++. MS bribed their way into getting OOXML accepted as an ISO open standard. Truly open applications shouldn't go along with this scam. MS has suffered very little for their bad behavior. Even MS Office users (prior to 2007) have had trouble with this docx fraud. Perhaps LibO and all other Open Source projects - and perhaps anyone supporting ODF for that matter - should treat OOXML like Microsoft treats ODF and other formats - as third party as possible. In other words, read support should be something that users must enable; Save support should not be possible - it must be converted to either an older MS format (e.g. doc, xls) or ODF. We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have pointed out ODF is quickly becoming the world standard at least at the government level - which means in a few years most organizations that support governments will need to support ODF too, and a few years after that organizations that support those organizations, and so forth. MS has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time before OOXML (especially) and their legacy formats are gone. The idea of LibO/etc reading OOXML pushes the issue - just like MS did to so many other formats to get people to convert to their formats. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Of course, all functionality should be dually advertised - with explanations as to why. Ben P.S. I am not advocating vengeance - just equal and fair play. P.P.S BTW, Office 2007 and later often get set to use the legacy formats by default as many organizations don't use OOXML if they have an organizational standard. It's only those that don't that continue using the defaults. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
- Original Message From: BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com Even MS Office users (prior to 2007) have had trouble with this docx fraud. Perhaps LibO and all other Open Source projects - and perhaps anyone supporting ODF for that matter - should treat OOXML like Microsoft treats ODF and other formats - as third party as possible. In other words, read support should be something that users must enable; Save support should not be possible - it must be converted to either an older MS format (e.g. doc, xls) or ODF. We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have pointed out ODF is quickly becoming the world standard at least at the government level - which means in a few years most organizations that support governments will need to support ODF too, and a few years after that organizations that support those organizations, and so forth. MS has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time before OOXML (especially) and their legacy formats are gone. The idea of LibO/etc reading OOXML pushes the issue - just like MS did to so many other formats to get people to convert to their formats. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, no? Of course, all functionality should be dually advertised - with explanations as to why. Oh, and one other point - why risk the legal liability? Even ISO OOXML is burdened by licensing issues; but then again - MS continues to not support ISO OOXML and instead use their own 'enhanced' version which probably has far more legal liabilities than ISO OOXML. And while MS Office has moved on to newer versions of OOXML, ISO OOXML has not been updated - I'm not even sure Alex Brown pays attention to it any more as he seems to just be nit-picking ODF at the moment (see his posts on the ODF Office Comments list). $0.02 USD Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format
- Original Message From: Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com snip We need to force MS to support ODF - as others have pointed out ODF is quickly becoming the world standard at least at the government level - which means in a few years most organizations that support governments will need to support ODF too, and a few years after that organizations that support those organizations, and so forth. MS has lost the file format battle to ODF - it's just time before OOXML (especially) and their legacy formats are gone. Unfortunately, MS now claims that it *does* support ODF, reading and writing files with the ODF extensions. But users attempting interoperability will soon discover that the MS implementation is not really compatible with other ODF implementations (most notably in spreadsheet formulas, but not just that). I think the MS plan here is to say that *they've* got the true standard implementation and everybody else is wrong. Since that (basically proprietary) version of ODF is now distributed as part of MS Office, it's just about everywhere, so they have the numbers on their side. That seems to leave everybody else once again playing catch-up with MS, which can then simply do as it pleases with the standard, being the 600-pound gorilla in the room. Interoperability issues will than be charged against the non-MS implementation, making it safer for organizations to stay with MS. Am I being unduly pessimistic here? True, they do have a plug-in available to support ODF, but (last I checked) it is not part of the default install - you must install it separately, and it only supports Office 2007 and later, while they pushed OOXML support out to Office 2003 and possibly earlier versions too. However, they do not (again at least last I checked) let you save it via the normal means, e.g. Save/Save As dialog, and you cannot make it the default. They also follow only the 1.0 or may be the 1.1 version that made it through ISO refusing to do anything that is not in the ISO version, and then doing it in a rather broken manner. However, they are not the 600-pound gorilla in the ODF market given the dozens of implementations that more or less agree on how most things should be done. For instance, unlike all other implementations (again last I checked) MS wrote the value of the cell to the normal location for an ODS spreadsheet while writing the formula to a MS Office specific namespace - whereas everyone else write the formula to the cell location and not application specific namespaces. Effectively making MS Office ODF files non-interoperable with everyone else. I think they may also drop all other application specific data too; or may be they were kind enough to leave that intact, don't remember on that front. Conversely, I think there is likely enough interoperable software out there that it can be easily pointed out that MS has the broken implementation in such cases. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
- Original Message From: Mark Preston m...@mpreston.demon.co.uk To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 12:18:16 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package. I see several issues in the discussion about installers - and I only just joined the list! Let's list 'em... 1. You are assuming everyone will be running Linux. They won't. 2. You assume they all have a packaged Linux distro. They won't. Only the latest discussion has focused around Linux. It hasn't been the only OS discussed or assumed. 3. You presume they can all grab tar's themselves. They can't. 4. You assume they will all download the package. They won't. That should always be an option, regardless of whether people avail themselves of it. Installers are needed because (1) you can adapt an installer to manage installation on all the systems people *will* be using, such as Windows XP, Vista, Win7 and - for some - either 32-bit or 64-bit versions; Linux using Debian-based or other installers and (2) those who have no standard installer system included; Android users and even Apple users (3) who want something that installs like an app does; even, despite the undoubted acrimony, Solaris users. Finally (4), there will be those users who buy a preconfigured or even standard virtualised system from a supplier and want both the supplier provided system and the discs to fix any problems - and for that you want a packaged product with installer and repair system to put on disc. While an installer may not be the top priority, it is undoubtedly a very important feature that needs to be present to reach the widest number of users. An Installer only helps on Windows. Solaris has a packaging system; nearly all Unixes have a packaging system. Linux Distros have their own packaging systems. Fortunately, TDF/LO can focus on providing 3 Linux packages: debian, rpm, slackware, source tarball Nearly every Linux distro will provide its own package according to its own packaging system; but those above will meet everyone else. Most non-Developer Linux Users only install what is in or is compatible with the packaging system their distro uses. Mac also has a packaging system which is pretty much a zip file with all the relevant files contained therein. (Not really, that's just a good simplified description.) All Mac targeted software is installed that way - the exception likely being the OS and its relations (e.g. drivers). That is simply the Mac-way and Mac users will expect that. iOS and Android are not being targetted (from what I can tell) and LO/OOo would be far too big for them right now any how. They also each have a standard method of installation - the AppStore and Android MarketPlace. So again, no separate installer is necessary there. So, really the _only_ platform an installer is really necessary on is Windows, which is the _only_ platform without a standard packaging system or installation method. Yes, Windows has the Microsoft Windows Installer System (MSI files), but it's still never had a standard installation method. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A better idea for a download package.
- Original Message From: Robert Derman robert.der...@pressenter.com I remember that optical disks started to replace floppies in about 1995 because Win-95 came either way. Win-98 was CD only. I will admit that DVD burners didn't become affordable until about 2005, but most of what I built in 2000 through 2004 had either a CD burner and a DVD read only, or from 2003 on combo drives, CD burn, DVD read only. But my point here is that 2004 and older machines are horribly obsolete today, and the vast majority of them have been scrapped! Also most of these old clunkers are only found in the more technologically advanced countries, because the 3rd world countries didn't start to get computers in any significant numbers until after the time of the old floppy based machines. FYI - there are a lot of organizations that take any computer they can - regardless of age - and refurb it and ship it to 3rd world countries so that some people can simply _have_ a computer. Doesn't matter that it's 10 or 15 years old - as long as it runs and runs well. They'll find a configuration that will run on it. Granted, most of such computer do meet the trash can; but they are out there and should not be discounted. $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] A better idea for a download package.
- Original Message From: Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com On 2010-11-30 5:29 PM, BRM wrote: LibO - like OOo - does not really have separate components. Even if you could download just one component, the resulting size would only be a few MBs smaller than it is now. While that may currently be the case - that is absolutely ridiculous. TDF/LO should make a priority of resolving that issue. Great, then I'm sure your contribution of these code changes will be forthcoming soon? Yes, I'm joking. As joking as you may be, I for one would do so if I had the time. As it is - I might in a few months, but I can't guarantee it right now. The cost/benefit would _be_ worth it. As was explained to me - it is not just that it is a huge job, it is a monstrous job that would essentially require rewriting the entire code base from scratch. I have also heard horror stories from very experienced programmers when they start getting into the code. And that is exactly why it would be worth it. If experienced developers are having trouble getting into the code, then just imagine how much the code itself is turning people away from contributing to LO/OOo. Resolve that and you will likely get a lot more contributors of varying experience levels - or at least, more experienced contributors. So, again, no one is saying this wouldn't be a wonderful thing, it is simply not something that is feasible at the moment. It will never be feasible. So instead of saying yeah that needs to be done, but its not feasible let's hash out a plan for actually doing so. Having created installers before - namely MSI's - there should ultimately be no reason why the installer should be broken down as: - core LO libraries used by each package And again, the point is, these core LO libraries used by each (assuming you mean used/shared by all packages) consist of 98% of the size of the download, I mean: - static and shared libraries that consist of code utilized by independent executables for each program. - ancillary programs that aid each program - etc. so the cost/benefit ratio is just not worth it. And again - you made my exact point that the cost/benefit will be worth it if not for getting more contributors alone. Please stop discouraging this kind of work. If the effort is to be done at all, then we need to encourage this kind of work - even if in small incremental steps. But it has to start somewhere and with a goal in mind to accomplish. Are the LO/OOo developers/management that averse to change? I certainly hope not. Is TDF that adverse to change? I certainly hope not as well. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] A better idea for a download package.
- Original Message From: Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com On 2010-11-30 2:16 PM, Kevin Vermeer wrote: Perhaps the installer could be replaced by a small configuration application, which would allow the user to select the components they wish to install, and would then download the selected components? This is fast becoming an FAQ... LibO - like OOo - does not really have separate components. Even if you could download just one component, the resulting size would only be a few MBs smaller than it is now. While that may currently be the case - that is absolutely ridiculous. TDF/LO should make a priority of resolving that issue. Componentizing it is such a huge job that it is really not worth discussing here. It will most certainly be worth it as things will get easier to maintain (code-wise). It will also allow for better installation flexibility. It also has nothing to do with the software being seamlessly integrated. I understand that StarOffice was once one big integrated application - I used SO5/6 at one point under the free license before OOo exited. However, that doesn't mean that everything needs to depend on everything else. Having such a complex code structure will simply push developers away - yes, I did look at modifying OOo at one point (a few years ago), only I was unable to figure out where to even start due to code structure and organization. (I do hope to try again at some point when I get the chance.) Having created installers before - namely MSI's - there should ultimately be no reason why the installer should be broken down as: - core LO libraries used by each package - package for each app (writer, calc, etc.) - separate language packages for documentation and language bindings - extensions clip art can be added as additional packages of varying sizes (e.g. most popular, top 100, etc.) In MSI terms each of the above would be an MSI Merge Module, with each installer just being a conglomerate of Merge Modules for all the pieces and the necessary glue. Many open source projects - TortoiseSVN, Pidgin IM, Gtk, KDE SC, to name a few - already do this kind of thing too; and commercial software highly utilizes such mechanisms to tailor installs to different customer groups. KDE on Windows (windows.kde.org) even provides an installer that downloads over the Internet the required parts for the install - not saying that's how we should go about. But you definitely need to target things a bit differently to capture more people groups - in terms of language, and network connectivity. As an organization, TDF should look at selling USB sticks, CDs, and DVDs on-line for those without Internet or extremely slow downloads - a good way to raise some money to support the organization with too. (Yeah, volume probably won't be very high; though if planned out well, it could even be put into on-line and brick mortar stores too - though I'd just offer on-line to start and provide a contact page for distributors that want to carry it.) A LO/Writer installer should just be the necessary parts for LO/Writer. Same for an LO/Calc installer. Documentation and additional language packages could be supplemental downloads. The current size problem as compared to OOo is because all of the language packs are included... and this situation is only temporary until storage is no longer an issue... Patience, I'll agree - but a real solution is necessary. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Survey: Usage of LibreOffice components
- Original Message From: Robert Boehm boehm.robe...@gmail.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Sun, November 28, 2010 1:14:38 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Survey: Usage of LibreOffice components On 11/28/2010 12:09 PM, Sebastian G. bastik wrote: I'd like to know which components are most used and maybe why others are not. If you used OpenOffice before you can include your usage data as well. This is more or less private. There's no goal (other than to satisfy my curiosity) of this survey, but someone might use it for it's own purposes. e.g. discussing about changing installer defaults, creating a light installer... and so on. I start (OpenOffice usage included): Writer = 90% Calc = 09% Impress = 01% Draw = 00% Base = 00% Math = 00% Writer - 80% Calc - 18% Impress - 1% Base - well, I'd rather use a full RDBMS, if I need an interface I'll write one. Base/MS-Access has no use for me. Though I will probably use Base to access some old Access MDB's I have laying around from years ago. Math - I don't do formulas, so no. Draw - haven't used it yet I mostly do spreadsheets, documents, and some occasional presentation slides. Do you use the quick starter? I don't use the quick starter. Do not use Quickstarter because the computers are fast enough that it's not necessary. +100. I turn off all these things. I also review the start-up stuff on my Windows systems every now and again and remove anything I do not know and anything I think is unnecessary - even if it doesn't have a sys-tray icon. Removing this would be one more step for the good of all software users. It is never necessary to pre-load a program so as to make users _think_ (perception) that the software loads faster than it really does. If such steps are necessary, then the codebase needs to be reworked to actually _be_ faster. I use OOo (for now) at home exclusively; though I do have to use in conjunction to MS Office at work; at least for converting DOC files from ODF. I do the conversion via OOWriter, but then have to go clean-up the cross-references, etc. in Word to ensure everything is correct. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] LO Feature...
I never joined the OOo mailing lists so it never got proposed there, and if there's a better TDF mailing list to post this to then please let me know so I may do so. I did, however, try to submit something to the ODF folks; but that never got any where. I've worked on proposals and similar kinds of documents in the past - where you split a single document up among a number of people, each writing a section, and have one person in charge of re-integrating everything again. Frankly, I'm quite surprised that Word doesn't have better support there - but that just means opportunities for OOo/LO and other F/OSS software. Please point me at how to do this in LO/OOo if this already exists, but essentially I'd like to do the following: 1. Create a master document (A.odt) 2. Create a master outline in the master document (A.odt - outline) 3. Create a sub-document (A.sub1.odt) from the master document with permission to only edit a certain section of the master outline. 4. Repeat #3 for each section of the outline as desired. 5. Join all sub-documents as the single master document - e.g. the many documents are viewable as a single document. 6. Apply a master set of formatting styles from the master document, overriding any formatting styles in the sub-documents. I kind of see this playing out in the files as follows: A. Each sub-document is its own file (ODT, etc.) B. LO/OOo Writer would generate the sub-documents from the master document C. When re-integrating the sub-documents, they would simply become part of the master document - the ODT/etc would be embedded into the ODT of the master document and a file reference would be provided to reference it; perhaps a master index.xml file would be used for linking everything. The ultimate goal is to have discreet modules of the document that can be handed out for others to write; they don't necessarily need to even have the outline from the master document - though they might. Each discreet module would then be seamlessly integrated back into the master document by simple linking - with the outline of the master document taking precedence. For example, the master document has 3 sections; each section (I, II, and III) are pushed out as discreet modules for others to write. Each writer sees an outline starting at one (I, 1, A, etc.) and writes their piece. When the document it relinked back into the master document, its internal outline then becomes the outline under the specified section. This should be possible to do recursively - e.g. the writer of a section II generates an outline II.A, II.B, II.C and does the same there. I'm pretty sure that the ODF format can support this. If OOo/LO cannot do this now, then that would be a great enhancement that could really help many in their work flows for developing proposals and any other kind of documents that are farmed out among a team in an organization like that. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LO Feature...
- Original Message From: Andy Brown a...@the-martin-byrd.net snip Have you tried working with master documents? The User Guide is available on the OOo wiki at http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/OOo3_User_Guides/Writer_Guide on the right hand side is a list of documents for Writer. That may not cover your points 100% but I think you will find it close. I had noticed it recently (really recently) and hadn't had a chance to play with it yet, but was not quite sure if it was the same as what I am describing. From what you an and RGB ES are saying it is - in which case, cool. That's one up for OOo/LO over Microsoft Office. Thanks! Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: On the Future of TDF
- Original Message From: Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Tue, November 16, 2010 4:12:50 AM Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: On the Future of TDF Le 2010-11-16 03:29, timofonic timofonic a écrit : That's interesting to know about OASIS, thanks for the explanation. What about sharing the document file format support between FOSS related programs? It's the other part of the idea that not got answered :) The ODF formats are well documented. I don't know how much more support other FOSS related programs would need other than help with it implementation in a particular program. I am sure that is a FOSS developer team asked for help, someone would lend a hand. I think he means having a shared library that all the programs - LibO, KOffice, etc. could all use for accessing ODF. However, that is likely unrealistic as the different programs often use very different frameworks. KOffice uses Qt, which is dramatically different from Gtk. I'm sure you could probably integrate them if you'd like, but I see no reason why you would want to and having a single library of that nature support multiple frameworks would be nuts and difficult to maintain. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] On the Future of TDF
- Original Message From: AG computing.acco...@googlemail.com On 14/11/10 11:25, Mirek M. wrote: In addition, each single module of LibreOffice will be undergoing an extensive rewrite, with Calc being the first one to be redeveloped around a brand new engine - code named Ixion - that will increase performance, allow true versatility and add long awaited database and VBA macro handling features. Yep - that +does+ sound interesting. Any time-lines given for this or the other improvements? What I am interested in is what is TDF going to do to support VBA? And how are they going to get around issues like parts of the language being patented by Microsoft? There's a reason that the makers of Star Office and most everyone else do not support Visual Basic or VBA in their applications. So I'm quite curious how TDF is going to resolve that supposing they do implement it. Same goes for supporting .Net/Mono, OOXML, and the various other technologies Microsoft has there that they seem to be pledging to add - as there is a lot there that Microsoft does not relicense for use or implementation. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] FreeDesktop Bugzilla
- Original Message From: Sebastian Spaeth sebast...@sspaeth.de snip http://docs.officeshots.org/ may be a potential starting point - especially when it comes to document conversion / rendering fidelity. I don't know if and how easy this would be in drupal. So far I have coded a very simple webform in django (python is my thing :-)) to allow uploading a document and a comment. Next, I want to integrate automatic conversion of the doc to .pdf by LibO in which, when finished, the user can mark the pages that exhibit conversion problems. Adding screenshots from MS Office would be cool, but I don't know how to do that (although the officeshot site manages it, so it must be possible). The only thing that is then left, is to link the uploaded doc to a bugzilla issue and display the status from the bug in question. The linking to a bug would (in my vision), not necessarily happen by the user, but by QA team, that vets those entries. You do realize that Bugzilla and other similar tools do allow you to attach files, etc directly to the bug report, no? I.e. there is no need to have an external source to store the files. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] FreeDesktop Bugzilla
- Original Message From: Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 15:36 +0100, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote: LibreOffice already has the selectable help/about version text so it can be cut/pasted. Yeeey!! :-) Hardly. Now you've got two things that can go wrong for a bug report. Sure it's less the user has to remember, but now you're relying the user being able to reliably copy/paste for the bug report too - information that may not be easily accessible - e.g. if they can't run the software due to it crashing, perhaps without generating the crash report manager. Version key (paste from help-about): That's what I allways dreamed from in OOo!! Nice - so - I guess we can do still better. It would be -really- nice if we could cut/paste a block of text (perhaps a non-human-readable chunk) that we could parse in javascript to auto-fill-out many of the fields accurately: platform / exact version / enabled extensions / java version / etc. etc. I'll add this as an easy hack. As/when we have a defined URL, we could add a 'file a bug' link that could even auto-populate that. Lots of fun is possible. First we need some draft of the form / flow / wizard[in a single page] to fill in to file the bug I think. Why bother? If you can do that, then you can just as easily have it load the web page in a browser for the user to simply review and sign off on, or even just have another dialog come up that directly submits the information to the system without having to go through a web browser - which would be even better to do so as to cover users that don't necessarily have Internet access since you could then create a zip file and give them instructions on what to do when they _do_ have Internet access (or provide a means to send it at a later time). Seriously, Thunderbird has a means to capture a crash report and save it for later submittal. They recognize that not all users are able to access the Internet or their mail system at all times. LibO needs to account for that too. And no, copy/paste is not a step in the right direction here. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
- Original Message From: Charles Marcus cmar...@media-brokers.com On 2010-10-31 6:56 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the code. Why can't TDF just add a simple, one-liner to its license stating that any contributions automatically grant a co-copyright to TDF? Of course, this would have to be made crystal clear to any contributors prior to accepting their code, but I don't see why a specific signed document would be necessary - I don't have to sign anything for an EULA to be binding. While IANAL, to my understanding at least the US requires explicit documentation of copyright assignment. So a license stating such would not work. So in order to be able to use it in all situation you have to play to the least common denominator legally - thus explicit copyright assignment. Again, IANAL consult legal counsel accordingly for something authoritative. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
- Original Message From: Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation Hi all, BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41) From: Thorsten Behrenst...@documentfoundation.org BRM wrote: The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have their pros and cons. Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read a while back. Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. What would be the use of people giving the option to share a CA or not. Just the fact that, in case for e.g. a licence update, you only have to contact x% of the contributors? It certainly reduces the burden. Otherwise you have to contact 100% of contributors, not all of which may be easy to find if at all. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
- Original Message From: todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:28 AM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 2:22:03 AM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document BRM wrote (29-10-10 00:41) BRM wrote: The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have their pros and cons. Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read a while back. Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. What would be the use of people giving the option to share a CA or not. Just the fact that, in case for e.g. a licence update, you only have to contact x% of the contributors? It certainly reduces the burden. Otherwise you have to contact 100% of contributors, not all of which may be easy to find if at all. I don't mean to be morbid, but they may not even be alive. Which when we discover, may be good to offer the estate - the ability to hand-off copyright assignment so that: i) the estate can completely close out ii) the estate won't have to worry about being questioned about it in the future iii) the estate may not be aware of it to start with and may get closed out without anything happening; in which case local law determines what happens (yet another headache) Iv) the estate or successor-in-interest may not understand the question IANAL, $0.02 Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
- Original Message From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Le Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:12:59 -0700 (PDT), BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com a écrit : From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put LGPL v3 or later or LGPL v3 or +. But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. While I like that TDF is not requiring copyright assignment, there is one point missing here that is in its favor. True, Sun/Oracle has currently licensed OOo under LGPLv3. But what's to stop them from going to LGPLv4 when it is available? Absolutely nothing. At which point TDF may not be able to accept changes from OOo any longer assuming it is still possible at that time without updating the LO license to be the same or inclusive therein. Perhaps the way around that is to require those contributing TDF to use the or later language; though some may not want to. Even without copyright assignment the only thing standing in the way of changing the license - whether to LGPLv4 or even GPLv3 or whatever else - is getting the permission of _all_ the copyright holders. Good objection indeed! Actually, the problem is partly solved, since we now license our software under LGPL v3 or later. At least it would be solved for the LGPL side of things. But my real answer here though, is perhaps more provocative: if Oracle changes the licence, do we really care? for the 3.3 we stick to the codebase of OOo, but I'm unsure we'll stick that much to it in further releases. In fact, I can already point out, looking at our development activity, that we're not taking the path of being OpenOffice.org, just recompiled by the community. I think as the time will go by, we will diverge more and more and end up becoming quite different software. For the most part, probably not. Though all code coming from OOo is LGPLv3 only, you might for whatever code is shared if LO was to relicense its code under LGPLv4 or later at some point, if only to gain the advantages of the new version of the license from the FSF. And I in no way intended to make it sound as if LO is just a community recompile of OOo; rather, it is the community extension of OOo. Kind of similar to how Andrew Morton and Linus Torvalds both had their own development trees and releases of the Linux Kernel. Linus' is the official kernel, but it equally competed with the mm branch maintained by Andrew Morton. The mm branch typically had everything in Linus' branch plus some other stuff - extra patches, etc. - that Linus is not ready or willing to accept yet.[1] LO, at least at this juncture, is very similar with OOo - it's inherited a huge code base that has to be maintained, and is adding its own stuff. It is wise to incorporate the changes from OOo for any overlap there is if not only so there is a lower level of support required for LO until those parts get written out, etc. The bigger difference here is that LO has to worry about user interface stuff - where Andrew Morton does not. Only time will truly tell how the two products (LO and OOo) diverge; but we shouldn't shut the door or exclude the possibility of continued merges from OOo. As a developer I certainly do like the no copyright assignment; as an organization looking to be able to enforce and update the license as necessary to maintain the product I would prefer the copyright assignment. As I said earlier, both have their pros and cons. I wonder if anyone has ever investigated a middle-ground - a contract between the organization and the developer such that the developer allows the organization to update the license so long as the license meets certain conditions - so the organization can be pro-active concerning license changes, yet doing so without assigning copyright. While IANAL it seems there might be a way to meet both needs. Again, just $0.02. Ben [1] mm tree was closed down several years back. So it's no longer current, but there are still numerous other layers in the Linux development model that do just this still. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
- Original Message From: Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Thu, October 28, 2010 5:37:19 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation BRM wrote: The Linux Kernel guys don't require it; KDE E.v. does. Both methods have their pros and cons. Hi, just a very small correction here - KDE e.V. does not require it, it is optional to sign their FLA (a trait shared among other FLOSS projects, e.g. the Python Foundation acts similarly). Thank you for the correction. I thought they did from what I had read a while back. Yet another method to accomplish the same goal. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
- Original Message From: Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com Il 20/10/2010 5.46, M. Fioretti ha scritto: The real question was why didn't the TDF founders who have/had official roles in OOo publicly resign from those roles on Sept 28th, one second BEFORE announcing the birth of TDF? Would'nt it have been much more proper, considering that creating TDF is basically saying in public the way Oracle is handling OOo sucks so much that we can't take it anymore? Why all this surprise now? Formally, and form is important in this matter, TDF *will be* a new legal entity that Oracle could want to join. And an offer in such sense has been made. An official answer is still missing. Among gentlemen, any question needs an answer, doesn't it? Perhaps there is another issue at play here. Yes, Oracle was invited to contribute to TDF; but the current discussion on TDF membership and documents on-line seem to forbid organizations. So Oracle would not be able to join TDF, where it could join VESA, EFF, or any number of other organizations out there. Perhaps that is part of the problem; after all, Oracle just spent several billion dollars buying Sun - at least part of which would have been for OOo and all its assets. Perhaps timing could have been better. $0.02 Ben -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Basic question about Oracle asking OOo community members to leave
- Original Message From: Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net Perhaps there is another issue at play here. Yes, Oracle was invited to contribute to TDF; but the current discussion on TDF membership and documents on-line seem to forbid organizations. At first, we are just discussing at the moment - everyone who wants to have her points to be considered, may join the discussion. I have no problem if people from Oracle would joind and tell, that we could consider some points, so that it is more likely that Oracle would join us. At the moment there is no indication at all, that Oracle is interested to join the foundation or even the discussion. Second - the current idea is that organizsations could join indirectly through their member's (staff) contributions. This idea works quite well for e.g. Gnome foundation. There are other models and we need to find something to make organizations happy to join. We must take responsibility to discuss this as well. But that's the point. Oracle may want to participate as an organization and no indirectly through its staff members. That part alone may be what is causing some of the riff. From: Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:14 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: Oracle just spent several billion dollars buying Sun - at least part of which would have been for OOo and all its assets. Is it buying the software, or the community, or the market? Ok, well surly it bought the rights to the patents, and the development team. According to the press release it wanted Java and Solaris, not mysql or OOO. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/018363 It certainly bought the infrastructure, patents, trade marks, etc; as well as a strong say in how OOo progresses. I don't know their intentions, etc; just pointing out that (as much as I may like TDF myself) there may be another aspect to their response. How to put a price on the trust of the community? If a company or organization wants the trust of a community, it needs to do something for it. It will be a good test of oracles good will how it deals with the community and I would say that is the most important part of any project, it cannot be bought, it must be fed and taken care of. Agreed, and I think TDF is a good way of pro-actively helping to protect the community that way - versus how they treated the OpenSolaris project. In any case, I maintain that it is very hard to put a dollar value on the value of the source code with no community behind it. Agreed; though there is a dollar value to the source-code for OOo and infrastructure that supports it; as well as the employees of Sun/Oracle. Again, I'm just trying to point out that there may be another aspect in how TDF was put together that may be making Oracle feel shunned even though they were invited. It's kind of like forking Android, inviting Google to join, and then saying well, the developers can join but Google can only contribute, versus having an organization like Open Handset Alliance. That said, I do like TDF (so please do not get me wrong) and hope this all works out, and am looking forward to hopefully contributing code at some point in the future. Ben -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
- Original Message From: Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples. Please let us not expand what defines contribution. Lobbying should not IMO garner admittance. Advocating should not. Working on this project(s) should be the only work that counts. Those who promote the project, and those who provide user support for the project do provide substantial services to the project. Without them, you would have either no users or a small set of users. Contributions must include them in some way, or the project will suffer. Ben -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
- Original Message From: Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 20:30 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:16:37 -0400, Drew Jensen d...@baseanswers.com a écrit : On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 16:57 +0200, Gianluca Turconi wrote: Il 20/10/2010 16.36, Mike Dupont ha scritto: 1. what will it cost if you have to rewrite the authors code and all derived works. 2. what if you just remove the code Contributions are not only code. There are a lot of intangibles. Marketing, lobbying and advocating work are some examples.k - if you do that AND you also are active on the MLs here, you are on the marketing conference calls and you pitch in to help write and execute a marketing plan. Then you _are_ working on the project. Agreed, though I wouldn't just say the MLs, but the forums, etc. You have to be part of the community as well; not just out saying things about it. I've come and gone through a number of communities - Subversion, Samba, PHP, to name a couple - over the years as interests, time, and demands require. I haven't quite contributed to any them in terms of code, but I was contributing to them in terms of user support - helping people with questions, etc; and in some cases submitting feature requests, etc. All of that is contribution. Perhaps another model to consider is Gentoo's model - http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/. Many contribute on the list, but only a few are brought into the Gentoo Foundation. Ben -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] [SC] How to define Membership within TDF?
- Original Message From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:05:50 +0200, Gianluca Turconi m...@letturefantastiche.com a écrit : In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:34:33, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org ha scritto: I can understand why you want to make that distinction. My own interpretation, aside the fact that we stated at the beginning what we hear by member, is that how we define the membership applies to anyone, but it is based on its role and contribution. An individual should be able to contribute and be recognized as a member. As such, no corporation, who might also be a member, shall be recognized as having a higher footing; contributions are what matters only. Perhaps I did misunderstand you there, but there is of course another kind of community, which is often referred as an user community. Yes, it's likely you misunderstood me. :) I didn't mean the user community, but the dev community itself. However, I think there's another important misunderstanding about what *you* (Charles and Andre and maybe others) think a Foundation is and what *I* think it is. According to me, a Foundation is a central, independent legal entity that takes decisions about a productivity suite called LibreOffice (BTW, who owns the trademark?): how to protect its code base (without copyright assignment), how to further develop it, how to improve the open source ecosystem around its development. That kind of things cannot be done without a formal and well defined membership application. Contribution cannot be enough for a member's application acceptance, because in my conception of Foundation, there are actual principles that are not limited to contribution. And they cannot be tested in the books (I swear to respect the Foundation's Charter) but they must be clear in the facts (I'm a well respected member of the community and I've always acted in good faith in the past). I mean: this time, after what happened with Sun/Oracle, we need to cancel any gray zone and keep in mind that ***Free Software*** comes first. A larger members' base is useless for a Foundation if those gray zones are kept. So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question, but one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community, and that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation itself (the legal object, the kernel as you called it) in jeopardy . Basically, every contributor could come around and harm the foundation. (Did I get this right?) If that's what you implied, I... sort of don't agree with you but at the same time see wisdom in your objection. We would need protect certain parts of the foundation from direct, daily interference. However, where I don't agree with you is that we should, provided a majority of contributors do agree, be in charge of our own destiny. This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question of the membership, and separate it from the question of the foundation structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions are all related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able to generate some valuable input I think. Perhaps this could be resolve by two classes of membership? One of a general community membership recognized solely as suggested, and one that has a greater responsibility to TDF and TDFs agenda that also has a more thorough check to enter into, perhaps with the community membership as a pre-requisite requirement. I think the primary concern being raised is one of someone becoming a member for subversion purposes, much like what Microsoft did to ISO for OOXML. While Microsoft as an organization could not be a member, they certainly stuffed the appropriate committees with their people (directly and indirectly through partners)such that they were essentially the only voting entity. Since we are aware that some organizations will stoop that to that level to get their agenda through - whether it is a document format or simply to crush a competitor (again, Microsoft has been known, and can be shown to currently, to push their executives into an organization to subvert it for their agenda when the organization is not doing what they want - e.g. pushing Windows). I'm a bit of an outsider to this - one that would like to find a way of getting more involved at some point, so please take it for what its worth. Ben P.S. Not meaning to pick on Microsoft here, they just have the best, most recent, and most well known examples of the suggested bad-behavior that needs to be protected again. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for
[tdf-discuss] Question...from Go-OOo or OOo
With all the fork discussion going on, I figured I'd just as well as this one too. Since the announcement, I've heard a number of people (via comments on Slashdot and OSNews at the very least) suggest that LibreOffice is a fork of Go-OOo instead of OOo (realizing that Go-OOo is derived from OOo). Now, reading the documents you all put up on TDF's website[1], I have answered that it seems more like a fork from OOo that accepted the Go-OOo patches. It would be great to get some clarity on that - especially in the FAQ section on TDF's website - if only just to be able to say the right thing. TIA, Ben [1] Specifically I've quoted this FAQ entry: Q: What does this announcement mean to other derivatives of OpenOffice.org? A: We want The Document Foundation to be open to code contributions from as many people as possible. We are delighted to announce that the enhancements produced by the Go-OOo team will be merged into LibreOffice, effective immediately. We hope that others will follow suit. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
