Re: [tdf-discuss] First Round of Questions for my Master Thesis

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 5:18 PM,   wrote:
> Hi all,
> my name is Veit.
> I had studied Free Software at Free Technology Academy (ftacademy.org) and
> Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC.edu).
> Now, after I had finished all my courses, I will write my Master Thesis.
> This will be a case study about the office suites OpenOffice and
> LibreOffice.

There used to be a project 'OpenOffice.org' which is now defunct.
Out of that project, we now have 'LibreOffice' and 'Apache
OpenOffice', and possibly others.

Sadly, www.openoffice.org does not reflect this situation.
Sorry for hijacking.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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

[tdf-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-marketing] "Code of Conduct"

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Tom Davies  wrote:
> Hi :)
> I'm not on the discuss list but i think you are right.  It would be better 
> there.
>
>
> The problem is enforcement.  However, i tend to find that  if a policy is 
> reasonable enough then people self-moderate.  The lack of a policy means 
> people don't think about what might not be ok.  There is a problem with 
> having a small elite group of people acting as moderators as it makes the 
> organisation seem quite hierarchical and patronising.  Then various people 
> dispute the rights of the moderators or feel they can legitimately mistreat 
> the moderators and so on and on.  If you create a police ofrce then you are 
> more likely to need them.  If you don't have one people tend to behave 
> better.  Just my experience of vaious co-operative group's meetings and 
> demonstrations and stuff.  Best to avoid moderators if possible.  Ubuntu's 
> Launchpad works really well without them.
>

The way it works with Ubuntu and the Ubuntu Code of conduct, is that
you digitally sign the agreement in order to show that you are bound
by it. This appears then in your Launchpad profile, so others can
verify.
Then, if you get into a nasty disagreement with someone that signed
the Code of Conduct, you simply refer them to the document and refuse
to escalate.
I cannot recall a situation in Ubuntu that went sour and was not resolved.

Since the Document Foundation does not offer per-user profile space,
then it should simply add to the mailing list welcome e-mail the text:

"By subscribing to the mailing list, you accept to abibe by the
LibreOffice Code of Conduct, found at http:///";

Simos

>
>>
>> From: Charles-H. Schulz 
>>To: market...@global.libreoffice.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, 25 September 2012, 10:18
>>Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] "Code of Conduct"
>>
>>Hello Tom,
>>
>>I don't know why you posted this on the marketing list, perhaps we
>>should continue this discussion on discuss@... anyway.
>>
>>Maybe such a code of conduct is needed, I don't dwell too much on the
>>users list to be frank. However, what's really important is to have this
>>code enforced, and that means to have community members who are able to
>>moderate and help the mailing list in question to remain polite and
>>helpful. In this sense, I would trust a few people more than I would
>>trust a code of conduct. As you do spend much more time  on the Users
>>mailing list than me, do you think you need such a code, or do you need
>>more people to help out users (in a polite tone, of course)?
>>
>>Best,
>>Charles.
>>
>>Le mardi 25 septembre 2012 à 11:04 +0200, Florian Monfort a écrit :
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> Sure sounds like a great idea :)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Florian Monfort
>>> Marketing Apprentice at Red Hat
>>> Marketing Team at The Document Foundation
>>> Student at France Business School
>>> +33 6 58 97 15 61
>>> florian.monf...@gmail.com
>>> On Sep 25, 2012 11:02 AM, "Tom Davies"  wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hi :)
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering if we could set-up a "Code of Conduct" along the lines of
>>> > Ubuntu's?
>>> >
>>> > http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/conduct
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > While we like to believe that everyone on the lists and involved with
>>> > LO is "just like us" that means very different things for different
>>> > combinations of "us".  The marketing list and documentation lists are very
>>> > polite and welcoming when someone new arrives and starts asking questions
>>> > but the Users List is often very rude and makes the new person feel very
>>> > unwelcome or even intimidated.  Can we legislate against rudeness?  Can we
>>> > even define it?  Different people obviously have very different ideas 
>>> > about
>>> > what is acceptable behaviour.
>>> >
>>> > Regards from
>>> > Tom :)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org
>>> > Problems?
>>> > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>>> > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>>> > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
>>> > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
>>> > deleted
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org
>>Problems? 
>>http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
>>Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>>List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
>>All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
>>
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to marketing+h...@global.libreoffice.org
> Problems? 
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/gl

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice for Academic Work -- College/University

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Bruce Byfield  wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2012 09:54:21 PM NoOp wrote:
>> On 05/18/2012 03:14 PM, Bruce Byfield wrote:
>> > On Friday, May 18, 2012 11:29:33 AM NoOp wrote:
>> >> On 05/17/2012 03:15 PM, Marc Paré wrote:
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > There is a need for a few templates for academic use; a built-in
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> You might want to contact/collaborate with Orest Kinasevyc. He wrote
>> >
>> >> several templates for APA Style 5th & 6th editions for students:
>> > My own academic days are past, so please excuse a suggestion I'm not
>> > willing to implement myself.
>> >
>> > However, I'm sure that more people would use the bibliographical tools if
>> >  the samples given weren't misleading. Anyone trying to learn from them
>> > might easily give up in despair.
>>
>> Perhaps you can explain as to how the samples are misleading? Maybe you
>> can provide a sample(s) of your own. Or be helpful and provide links to
>> other APA templates that meet your approval.
>
> My apologies for not being clearer. I wasn't talking about this particular
> template, but the default examples given in LibreOffice itself.
>

Can you elaborate on individual files? I think it would be ideal to
describe the task,
in case someone can take it up.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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 for Academic Work -- College/University

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
 wrote:
> On 16/05/2012 08:18, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Marc Paré  wrote:
>>>
>>> I need to work out a short note about use of LibreOffice in an academic
>>> environment. What would some of you, who are using LibreOffice, consider
>>> necessary to use LibreOffice in an academic setting.
>>>
>>> I am not looking for a "wish-list", but a list of any extensions/add-ons
>>> to
>>> LibreOffice that are available right now. Is LibreOffice sufficient as
>>> is,
>>> or do any of you have any suggestions of add-ons that are really needed
>>> for
>>> such a setting as a college/university/academic environment?
>>>
>> I think that LibreOffice, and specifically LibreOffice Writer, is
>> quite good in writing essays.
>> You can use page and paragraph styles in order to create a structured
>> document.
>> The documentation has more information about this, or see
>> http://simos.info/blog/archives/651
>> Actually this is very important, because the proper use of styles can
>> help you manage big documents.
>>
>> You can use math equations as in
>> http://www.libreoffice.org/features/math/ so no third-party tool is
>> required.
>>
>> You can manage your bibliography with Zotero (Firefox Add-on), which
>> has a feature to export to LibreOffice.
>>
>> Simos
>>
> Simos what about citation of sources and bibliographies, as well as
> appendices for lets say a thesis?
>

You can cite your bibliography in the document using 'Insert→citation".

There are more bibliography tools, if you are interested to test them out,
JabRef, http://jabref.sourceforge.net/
Mendeley, http://www.mendeley.com/ (+document management, closed source).

Regarding appendices, see
http://www.mail-archive.com/users@global.libreoffice.org/msg14422.html

I wonder if there is a document on the LibreOffice Wiki about all these.
That is, a document that explains how to use LibreOffice Writer for
academic work.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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 for Academic Work -- College/University

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Marc Paré  wrote:
> I need to work out a short note about use of LibreOffice in an academic
> environment. What would some of you, who are using LibreOffice, consider
> necessary to use LibreOffice in an academic setting.
>
> I am not looking for a "wish-list", but a list of any extensions/add-ons to
> LibreOffice that are available right now. Is LibreOffice sufficient as is,
> or do any of you have any suggestions of add-ons that are really needed for
> such a setting as a college/university/academic environment?
>

I think that LibreOffice, and specifically LibreOffice Writer, is
quite good in writing essays.
You can use page and paragraph styles in order to create a structured document.
The documentation has more information about this, or see
http://simos.info/blog/archives/651
Actually this is very important, because the proper use of styles can
help you manage big documents.

You can use math equations as in
http://www.libreoffice.org/features/math/ so no third-party tool is
required.

You can manage your bibliography with Zotero (Firefox Add-on), which
has a feature to export to LibreOffice.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] new fonts

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 6:45 PM, ron  wrote:

> How may I obtain new fonts for Libre Office Writer
>
>
You install the fonts in your operating system.
Depending on your operating system, there are different instructions.
Once the fonts are installed, there are usable by LibreOffice.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] [POLL] own forums

[Simos Xenitellis]

+1 for forums.

Simos

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Benjamin Horst  wrote:

> +1
>
> Ben
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 8:17 AM, adept techlists - kazar 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > (reasons:
> >
> > 1. Clarity -- rather than confusing users with info about OOo that may
> not apply to LO)
> > 2. Risk management -- LO foundation control over the forums' management,
> backups, servers, persistence/availability
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> > Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> > 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
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> 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
>
>


-- 
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
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] phpbb for the official LO forums

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton  wrote:

> It is the case that Stack Exchange is a challenge, although I don't recall
> having all that much difficulty with it.
>
> I concur completely about the desire for forums and the phpBB forums seem
> to
> work quite well (at least based on the experience with the OpenOffice.org
> Community Forums).  It does indeed depend on the vigilance of volunteers,
> moderators, and administrators.  But Forum governance can work very
> smoothly
> and it is a great outlet for peer support and the satisfaction of peer
> supporters who advance into volunteer and other categories.
>
> There is one value to Stack Exchange.  It is possible to set a search on
> Stack
> Exchange questions and watch for ones that are relevant to OO.o and LO.  I
> have done so and I see about one per day.  (I have probably responded to at
> most two of them.)
>
> I suspect it is possible to also create a search that also finds asked and
> answered or still unanswered questions about OO.o and LO.
>
> More eyes on those, especially for those who are enamored of Stock
> Exchange,
> would be valuable.
>

I think the big benefit for StackExchange is the built-in mechanism for
rewarding contributors with points.
See for example http://askubuntu.com/ (the Ubuntu StackExchange).
1. As you help out people, your readers can upvote your answers and you
earn badges.
2. There are bronze and silver and possibly gold badges.
3. You also earn privileges as you get more points. For example, you can
earn the privilege to modify/fix the questions of users if you feel they
can become better.
4. The design of StackExchange is to move much of the moderation work
towards the users themselves, and get them trained to produce better
answers.
5. AFAIK, there are dedicated people who perform general moderation for
issues that are missed by the volunteers. This helps tremendously to create
a nice and cooperative environment on AskUbuntu.

StackExchange is complementary to a forum.

There is Shapado and there is StackExchange. Which to choose if we ever go
for such a service? I would prefer StackExchange as it is bigger and hosts
already many heavy sites such as StackOverflow.
I fear that Shapado does not have a big consumer yet.

To get a LibreOffice StackExchange, there is a process where StackExchange
users need to vote in favor of the proposed site.


Regarding the forum, I think it will need to have the karma feature, a way
to reward users who post often.
In addition to this, it would be good to have an option to Thank the author
of a specific post.
See for example http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=755389 (at
end of post, 3 people thanked the author).
Both http://forum.xda-developers.com/ (4m members) and
http://ubuntuforums.org/ (1.5m members) are based on vBulletin, a
proprietary forum software.
If phpBB can perform similar functionality to vBulletin, it should be fine.
phpBB supports mods (addons), so it's an issue to search and test the
appropriate addons that they work reliably.

Simos


>
>  - Dennis E. Hamilton
>   tools for document interoperability,  
>   dennis.hamil...@acm.org  gsm: +1-206-779-9430  @orcmid
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Italo Vignoli [mailto:italo.vign...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 13:19
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] phpbb for the official LO forums
>
> On 11/4/11 7:56 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote:
>
> > many users have made *very* clear to me several times that they want a
> > "real" forum they know, like phpBB. Otherwise, I would have simply gone
> > with Nabble, so I'm a bit hesitant...
>
> I agree with Florian. Users want a forum, and this has been made very
> clear by many people. After having been accused of ignoring user needs
> because we didn't have a real forum, any other solution, at this stage,
> would be perceived in a negative way.
>
> Please remember that users are different from developers. As a user, I
> find stackexchange simply unacceptable (would really like to know who
> has had the idea).
>
> Users do not want to study the solution. They want to write a question,
> and get an answer. Simple problem, with a simple answer.
>
> Stackexchange makes it complex, in a useless way. I have been on the
> site for ten minutes, and I haven't been able to understand what I was
> supposed to do. I am usually considered a power user (sometimes, even a
> geek, at least in the marketing environment), and I don't see how
> something like stackexchange can be considered a better alternative to
> mailing lists and forums.
>
> Best, Italo
>
> --
> Italo Vignoli
> italo.vign...@gmail.com
> mobile +39.348.5653829
> VoIP +39.02.320621813
> skype italovignoli
>
> --
> Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundati

Re: [tdf-discuss] TDF fundraising suggestion - Bitcoin

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Florian Effenberger
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Ben McGinnes wrote on 2011-04-27 03.34:
>>       At Florian's recommendation I am posting this to the list for
>> discussion.
>
> did anyone have a closer look on this already? I read some issues with
> Bitcoin in the press the last weeks, but I must confess I didn't manage
> to follow that topic closely up to now. :/
>
> Any thoughts on Bitcoin?
>

People can 'mine' Bitcoins by using the computing power of their computers.
It's better to use the graphics card (such as AMD/ATI or NVidia), according to
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison

The TDF can benefit from the Bitcoin currency by
1. Bitcoind donations that users make to the TDF
»»» This requires the TDF to have a facility to receive Bitcoin donations.
Since Bitcoins are e-currency, it requires to have good safekeeping of
the money.
The recent bad publicity of Bitcoins was due to bad safekeeping of the Bitcoins.

2. paying developers and others in Bitcoins.
»»» It would require some thinking as to what tasks to select that
would make sense
to receive payment in Bitcoins.


I would say that it is up to the users (members of the
discuss@documentfoundation.org) to express
their interest in mining for Bitcoins using their computer power, and
donating to the TDF.
If there is some initial interest to go into this process and donate
Bitcoins to the TDF,
then it would make sense to set up something to receive those Bitcoins.

Simos

-- 
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] Who does the maintenance Phyton Mailmerge script

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
> Simos,
>
> the bug report 
>>
>> Simos,
>>
>> The repair in Mailmerge.py is quite simple
>>
>>
>> at line 154  we have  textbody = textbody.encode('utf-8')
>>
>> where the textbody contains non-ascii characters like (éèà etc...)
>>
>> so just insert
>>
>> textbody = unicode( textbody, "utf-8" )
>>
>> before line 154 and everyting works fine !
>>
>> i make also the bug report with the correct
>>
>> mailmerge.py
>>
>>  attacheted
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Fernand
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:

 I found that we can send Emails using Basic and the API  using the
 Phyton
 Mailmerge stuff.
 There is a small problem to send Emails with non us-ascii characters. I
 solved the problem in the Python script, just wondering how do i pass
 this
 correction to the original script who is delivered by the native
 installion
 files
 I supose filling a issue ?

>>> Is this the file you were working on?
>>>
>>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core/tree/scripting/source/pyprov/mailmerge.py
>>>
>>> If so, then the way to go for this is:
>>>
>>> 1. create a patch (diff file) which highlights the changes you did to
>>> the Python code.
>>> If you can put your final version of mailmerge.py online, I can help
>>> you create the appropriate patch.
>>>
>>> 2. file a bug report at
>>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice
>>> Select the the component 'LibreOffice'.
>>>
>>> 3. tell us here the URL of this bug report so that we can have a look.
>>> There are several encoding issues with the Python scripts, so it would
>>> be nice to find a way to fix them all in one go.
>>>
>>> Simos
>>>
>>
>>

I created a patch for https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38713

The way to create a patch is quite simple,
1. Install 'git' for your operating system. Google for more or ask here.
2. Run

git clone git://anongit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core

3. Then, enter the libs-core/ directory, find your file and perform the change.
4. Finally, run

git diff

and it will create a diff that can be sent to bug reports.

Simos

-- 
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] Who does the maintenance Phyton Mailmerge script

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Fernand Vanrie  wrote:
> I found that we can send Emails using Basic and the API  using the Phyton
> Mailmerge stuff.
> There is a small problem to send Emails with non us-ascii characters. I
> solved the problem in the Python script, just wondering how do i pass this
> correction to the original script who is delivered by the native installion
> files
> I supose filling a issue ?
>

Is this the file you were working on?
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/libs-core/tree/scripting/source/pyprov/mailmerge.py

If so, then the way to go for this is:

1. create a patch (diff file) which highlights the changes you did to
the Python code.
If you can put your final version of mailmerge.py online, I can help
you create the appropriate patch.

2. file a bug report at
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=LibreOffice
Select the the component 'LibreOffice'.

3. tell us here the URL of this bug report so that we can have a look.
There are several encoding issues with the Python scripts, so it would
be nice to find a way to fix them all in one go.

Simos

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

2011/6/22 Jesús Corrius :
>> I checked those files as well. They are all 'noarch' (do not contain
>> compiled programs; No Architecture),
>> and contain the same .png branding images.
>
> The license not only covers the code, also the images. So if those
> images are in the program, the source code must include them.
>
> That's why the link to the source code has to point to them too, that
> is, it must point to the modified source code of your distribution.
> And not the original at LibreOffice's. Or point to both ;)
>

Two points:

1. When you reply to an e-mail, it is important to keep the lines which say
"On Friday 22 June 2011, XYZ  said:"
In this way, it is easy to see who said the quoted text.

2. As I said earlier, a user can get LibreOffice from the LibreOffice website,
or get it packaged from some other source (such as a Linux distribution).
It is the problem of that other source to explain to the user where to get any
modifications/additions.
We can say somewhere in the About dialog box something along the lines:

"You can get the source code for this version of LibreOffice by
following the instructions
at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/.
Please note that if you received LibreOffice from a distributor other
than www.libreoffice.org,
there might exist additional modifications; consult that distributor
for more details."

If the distributor is really into making significant changes in their
LibreOffice,
they can modify the above message and add specific instructions that
relate to them.
It is quite easy to do so; for Debian/Ubuntu, you can write

apt-get source libreoffice

However, this is an issue that Debian/Ubuntu and any other
distribution have to deal with.
Actually, a user of a Linux distribution is supposed to know already
that for each
package they can use these 'apt-get source xyz' commands to get the source code.

Simos

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Sveinn í Felli  wrote:
>
>
> Þann þri 21.jún 2011 12:46, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Felli  wrote:
>>>
>>> Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
>>>>
>>>> 2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
>>>>>> says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
>>>>>> specific Wiki page,
>>>>>> for example
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
>>>>>
>>>>> I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux distributions make
>>>>> modifications to the original source code. That means that the *real*
>>>>> source code will be the one from your distro and not the one you can
>>>>> download from the LibO website, hence the information will be
>>>>> misleading.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know, the distributions make minimal or no changes
>>>> to the actually code of LibreOffice. The best they will do is add
>>>> packaging instructions.
>>>> If you have information of a distribution that performs extensive
>>>> LibreOffice development
>>>> and did not bother to contribute them upstream, then please tell us
>>>> who they are.
>>>
>>> At least OpenSuse does more than that; they've been doing extensive
>>> 'branding' of both OOo and LO for quite some time.
>>>
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> <http://software.opensuse.org/search/download?base=openSUSE%3A11.4&file=openSUSE%3A%2FTumbleweed%3A%2FTesting%2FopenSUSE_Tumbleweed_standard%2Fnoarch%2Flibreoffice-branding-openSUSE-3.3.1-1.1.noarch.rpm&query=libreoffice-branding>
>>>
>>
>> I opened the file (file-roller can open .rpm files) and I only saw
>> some OpenSUSE branding icons and a small rc file.
>> There was no code in there, and the file is a 'noarch' one (No
>> Architecture).
>>
>> Perhaps you are referring to a different file?
>>
>> Simos
>>
>
> Better link here:
> <http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=libreoffice-branding&baseproject=openSUSE%3A11.4&lang=en&exclude_debug=true>
>
> BTW, there may be other packages as well.
>

I checked those files as well. They are all 'noarch' (do not contain
compiled programs; No Architecture),
and contain the same .png branding images.

Simos

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Sveinn í Felli  wrote:
> Þann þri 21.jún 2011 11:18, skrifaði Simos Xenitellis:
>>
>> 2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
>>>> says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
>>>> specific Wiki page,
>>>> for example
>>>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
>>>
>>> I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux distributions make
>>> modifications to the original source code. That means that the *real*
>>> source code will be the one from your distro and not the one you can
>>> download from the LibO website, hence the information will be
>>> misleading.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know, the distributions make minimal or no changes
>> to the actually code of LibreOffice. The best they will do is add
>> packaging instructions.
>> If you have information of a distribution that performs extensive
>> LibreOffice development
>> and did not bother to contribute them upstream, then please tell us
>> who they are.
>
> At least OpenSuse does more than that; they've been doing extensive
> 'branding' of both OOo and LO for quite some time.
>
> Example:
> <http://software.opensuse.org/search/download?base=openSUSE%3A11.4&file=openSUSE%3A%2FTumbleweed%3A%2FTesting%2FopenSUSE_Tumbleweed_standard%2Fnoarch%2Flibreoffice-branding-openSUSE-3.3.1-1.1.noarch.rpm&query=libreoffice-branding>
>

I opened the file (file-roller can open .rpm files) and I only saw
some OpenSUSE branding icons and a small rc file.
There was no code in there, and the file is a 'noarch' one (No Architecture).

Perhaps you are referring to a different file?

Simos

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

2011/6/21 Jesús Corrius :
>> 1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
>> says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
>> specific Wiki page,
>> for example 
>> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode
>
> I see a problem here. Usually GNU/Linux distributions make
> modifications to the original source code. That means that the *real*
> source code will be the one from your distro and not the one you can
> download from the LibO website, hence the information will be
> misleading.
>

As far as I know, the distributions make minimal or no changes
to the actually code of LibreOffice. The best they will do is add
packaging instructions.
If you have information of a distribution that performs extensive
LibreOffice development
and did not bother to contribute them upstream, then please tell us
who they are.
I would not see this as a show stopper; we can just append something like

"If you did not receive LibreOffice from http://www.libreoffice.org/,
there might exist extra changes
to the source code. Consult the distributor that gave you the
LibreOffice installation packages for more details."

> We provide all the required source tarballs for each version and every
> piece of code is in our git repository. So we fulfill all the
> requirements but we have the problem that it's not easy to find. I
> guess writing a good text about how to get the source code for every
> version and place it in our download page (or a link to the wiki page)
> is good enough.
>

So, everyone agrees that in any case we should write a nice wiki page
that explains the merits of the copyleft LibreOffice?
That is, a Wiki page that explains in simple terms how to benefit from
the source code.
Stage 1 would be to simply visit
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/ and select the version they
have.
For LibreOffice 3.3.2 and the Writer module, it's
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/writer/tree/?h=libreoffice-3-3-2
From there, you can view the files online.

Stage 2 would be to clone the source code repositories. The compressed
repositories are about 1.2GB,
and with the working copies they should reach about 2GB.
Then, with git commands it is possible to switch to any branch/version
of LibreOffice (such as 3.3.2).
Using Git source code tools, it is easy to view changes.
For example, see http://trac.novowork.com/gitg/wiki/Screenshots

Stage 3 would be to compile the whole lot and produce a new version of
LibreOffice.

Stage 4 would be to make an elemental change in LibreOffice (such as
modify slightly the About dialog box),
compile, and view the change in the newly produced LibreOffice.

I think that such a document will empower the end-users, and make them
appreciate the fact that LibreOffice is copyleft.

Simos

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 11:22 PM, John LeMoyne Castle
 wrote:
> Dennis, Tanstaafl,
>
> I take your point.  Users that have 3.3.2 installed can only get the code
> for 3.3.3 from the website.  As discussed above, I think this meets the
> spirit of the license but not the specific letter. Simon's idea about
> downloading the repo at the 3.3.2 marker is a great one, but there is no
> path to that on either website or wiki.
>

Let's do it then!

1. We want to add a paragraph somewhere in the About dialog box which
says that if we are interested in the source code, we should read a
specific Wiki page,
for example 
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/AvailabilityOfSourceCode

2. We create the web page which talks about the git repositories,
links to the pages
about cloning and checking out branches such as "libreoffice 3.3.2".

3. We write a patch for LibreOffice to add the special text and test it.

4. We submit a "bug report" to have the feature added to the next
version of LibreOffice.

I can help with items 2, 3 and 4.

I need help however as to
a. where exactly in the About box (or in the Help menu) shall we put
the short paragraph
Take screenshots and show on them where to add the text. Put those
screenshots on www.imgur.com,
send the URL here so we can view them.
b. what shall the text say. Propose something that will be helpful for someone
who genuinely wants to learn and use the LibreOffice source code.

Simos

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

> -Original Message-
> From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 17:44
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL 
> enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache 
> OpenOffice))
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>  wrote:
>> I didn't say I didn't know how to do it.  I didn't say I wanted to build it. 
>>  This is about honoring the spirit of the free software promise.  It is not 
>> even about building the code.  People may want to do any number of things 
>> with the source code (inspect for bugs, for example).
>>
>
> To honour the "spirit" of the free software promise, it should be more
> than adequate to grab the git repositories. Ask me if you want more
> details for this.
> To honour the "letter" of the free software promise, then you do need
> those 3.3.2 tarballs.
> A quick look at the TDF download website shows that it currently
> covers the latest versions (due to space?), 3.3.3 for the 3.3 line,
> and 3.4.0 for the 3.4 line.
> Digging a bit deeper shows this
> http://ftp.heanet.ie/mirrors/tdf/libreoffice/box/3.3.2/LibO_3.3.2-2_DVD_allplatforms_de.iso
> 2.8GB DVD ISO which I believe has the source code.
>
> People who actually want to do things with the source code would need
> to use the git repositories, as it shows the changes between different
> versions.
> You can also view online your 3.3.2 branch at
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice
>

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> I consider the spirit to always go beyond the letter.
>

The spirit does go well beyond the letter.

The spirit of the free software promise wants to enable you to
actually work on the source code,
compile it, make your private enhancements and possibly submit those
modifications back to the community.

And there is no better way to do this than have the 'git repositories'
of the LibreOffice source code.
Ideally, the 'git repositories' should be what everyone gets, rather
than a source code snapshot that has no source change history.
Admittedly, the 'git repositories' are about 1.2GB, but once you have
a local copy, you can use frequently 'git pull' to update them with
any upstream changes.
Do you want to switch the repository view to the 3.3.2 version? Simply
run the command

git checkout --track origin/libreoffice-3-3-2

Having a source code snapshot (tarball) is probably not much useful
compared to what you get with using the repositories,
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build

Simos

-- 
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?

-- 
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: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> I didn't say I didn't know how to do it.  I didn't say I wanted to build it.  
> This is about honoring the spirit of the free software promise.  It is not 
> even about building the code.  People may want to do any number of things 
> with the source code (inspect for bugs, for example).
>

To honour the "spirit" of the free software promise, it should be more
than adequate to grab the git repositories. Ask me if you want more
details for this.
To honour the "letter" of the free software promise, then you do need
those 3.3.2 tarballs.
A quick look at the TDF download website shows that it currently
covers the latest versions (due to space?), 3.3.3 for the 3.3 line,
and 3.4.0 for the 3.4 line.
Digging a bit deeper shows this
http://ftp.heanet.ie/mirrors/tdf/libreoffice/box/3.3.2/LibO_3.3.2-2_DVD_allplatforms_de.iso
2.8GB DVD ISO which I believe has the source code.

People who actually want to do things with the source code would need
to use the git repositories, as it shows the changes between different
versions.
You can also view online your 3.3.2 branch at
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice

Simos

> I *did* say I don't see where the distro tells me how to find it and I don't 
> see where the download page lets me find it "in the same way" (and now I 
> can't even find the version that I am running). 20-21 tar.bz's are also 
> rather intimidating, but way better than nothing.
>
> So, where is the link on the web site that would let me find the version I am 
> running and the source code for it?  (The same question for dependency 
> derivatives is a bonus question.)
>
>  - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 16:31
> To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
> Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL 
> enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache 
> OpenOffice))
>
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>  wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer.  I am looking 
>> for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) 
>> source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed 
>> (en-win-x86).
>>
>
> Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the
> source code.
>
> To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
> which cover different operating systems.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License
> information more informative
> so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed
> to the How_to_build page.
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> If I follow the "Download the source code to build your own installer" (why 
>> does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing. 
>>  Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's.
>>
>> Well, maybe that qualifies.  Maybe not.  But what about for my 3.3.2?
>>
>
> Indeed, the 3.3.2 version is not showing, because there are newer
> versions (3.4.1, 3.4.0 and 3.3.3) and the 3.3.2 does not fit to be in
> that page.
> You can get 3.3.2 files at
> http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/
> http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/src/
>
> As I said earlier, if you really want to compile, you would go for the
> 'git repositories' and the instructions at
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
>
>> AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES
>>
>> If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some 
>> place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way?
>>
>
> See the dependencies at
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build#Dependencies
>
> Simos
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion
Q. Why is top posting bad?

-- 
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

Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are 
> told about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, 
> tangible matters closer to home.  My question is basically whether the terms 
> of a GPL license attached to a software distribution are applicable to that 
> software distribution, not just downstream derivatives of it.  I assume the 
> answer is yes.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> WHY I ASK
>
> I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer.  I am looking 
> for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) 
> source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed 
> (en-win-x86).
>

Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the
source code.

To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build
which cover different operating systems.

By following the instructions, you create a local "repository" of the
source code,
and this repository has *all* versions of LibreOffice (such as 3.3.2
and 3.4.0) and you can select which to build.
It should take you a few hours of downloading + compilation to create
your own LibreOffice.
If you have a fast Internet speed and a good computer, it should take
you about 3 hours of compilation.

Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License
information more informative
so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed
to the How_to_build page.

> Looking at the Help | License Information ... tells me about licenses and 
> where to find them, but nothing about source code.  If I give this to my 
> friends, none of them will see anything about source code either.
>
> If I examine the license, I see that LGPL3 incorporates terms of the GPL3 by 
> reference, and license follows immediately thereafter.  The LGPL3 has 
> definitions about source code and it being conveyed.  The GPL3 has the 
> details.
>
> The preface to the GPL sys that
>
> "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
> want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
> free programs, and that you know you can do these things."
>
> Section 6, which applies to the non-source form of the LibreOffice 3.3.2 that 
> I installed specifies a number of ways that source code is still to be made 
> available.  6(d) seems applicable to the way I obtained LibreOffice 3.3.2 by 
> download:
>
> "d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis 
> or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in 
> the same way through the same place at no further charge. ..."
>
> SO WHERE IS IT?
>
> I know of no offer conveyed with the code.
>
> If I go back to the site, all I see are 3.3.3 Final and 3.4.0 Final.  I see 
> nothing that would allow me to re-retrieve or find the source of the 3.3.2 
> that I have in my possession.
>
> If I follow the "Download the source code to build your own installer" (why 
> does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing.  
> Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's.
>
> Well, maybe that qualifies.  Maybe not.  But what about for my 3.3.2?
>

Indeed, the 3.3.2 version is not showing, because there are newer
versions (3.4.1, 3.4.0 and 3.3.3) and the 3.3.2 does not fit to be in
that page.
You can get 3.3.2 files at
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/
http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/src/

As I said earlier, if you really want to compile, you would go for the
'git repositories' and the instructions at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build

> AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES
>
> If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some 
> place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way?
>

See the dependencies at
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build#Dependencies

Simos

-- 
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)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM  wrote:
> - Original Message 
>
>> From: Simos Xenitellis 
...
>> 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.
>

I have moved the discussion to the gpl-violations legal mailing list,
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/002872.html

Anyone can subscribe at http://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

Simos

-- 
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)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM  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 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?

>
> 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.

...
>
> 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.

Simos

-- 
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)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:56 AM, BRM  wrote:
> - Original Message 
>
>> From: Simos Xenitellis 
>> 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  wrote:
>> > On Thu,  Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
>> >   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.
>

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?

If a product is violating the GPL, then you can ask
http://gpl-violations.org/ for assistance
so that the manufacturer makes available the source code as required,
for the full range of products.

For my TV, I click on
a. Yellow button (documentation)
b. (It's already on the Get started menu)
c. Select "Open source Licenses".

That's it.

Simos

-- 
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

OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 17:54, Simos Xenitellis
>  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.

Tell me which LCD/LED TV  you have (brand, model), and I'll get for
you the source code (of the copyleft) software.

Simos

-- 
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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:49 AM, BRM  wrote:
>
> 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.

As I said earlier, you do not need to be a copyright holder to request
the source code
of a copyleft software.

Simos

-- 
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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Greg Stein  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  wrote:
>>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>>
>>> As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right.
>>> Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You.
>>>
>>> This is why I think the statement "removes rights from people's
>>> contributions" is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware
>>> of.
>>>
>>
>> GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone
>> else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of
>> the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the
>> GPL as well.
>
> 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,”

This misconception is mentioned and then explained often at the
http://gpl-violations.org/ mailing list.

The copyright holder ends up doing the suing for the source code in
order to make a manufacturer comply.
It is easier to do so, with more chances for success. Then, once the
manufacturer complies,
anyone can easily get the source code. And manufacturers do comply.

And talking about TVs, a certain manufacturer uses both copyleft and
permissive software
in order to make the firmware. While you get the source code of the
copyleft software, there is no
mention whatsoever for the permissive software.

Simos

-- 
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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Allen Pulsifer  wrote:
> Allen Pulsifer wrote:
>> If most or almost all of the LO contributors joined the Apache
>> OpenOffice project, if only to lend moral support and help heal the
>> rift, that would only be good for LO and the TdF.
>
>> Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> Allen, how can you, with a straight face, ask people here to come over to
> a different project,
>> that likely noone here is really happy with, that was setup as a fait
> acompli, marketed as the
>> "natural upstream", removes rights from people's contributions, and is
> effectively competing
>> (by how the proposal reads)?
>
 ...snip...
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Allen
>

If that is your best attempt for reconciliation, you are doing it wrong.

Simos

-- 
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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Simon Brouwer  wrote:
> Op 6-6-2011 10:38, Simos Xenitellis schreef:
>>
>> Let's read the document you cite,
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html
>>
>> A permissive license is recommended/suggested in two cases, when
>> a. «very small projects»
>> b. «projects that implement free standards that are competing against
>> proprietary standards,
>> such as Ogg Vorbis (which competes against MP3 audio) and WebM (which
>> competes against MPEG-4 video)»
>>
>> I cannot fit OpenOffice in any of these criteria.
>
> Doesn't OpenOffice.org implement the free standard ODF, which is competing
> against the MS Office "standard" file formats?
>

Currently OOo is a big piece of software that among many things can
read/write ODF documents. If OOo was to be simplified into an ODF
(non-GUI) component, reusable in many other applications, then the FSF
suggestion is being read properly.

Simos

-- 
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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>
>> What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
>> 1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice community.
>
> I would submit that "zero" community is somewhat of an understatement.

You start with a zero "OpenOffice" community. The Apache Foundation had
no prior involvement in the development of OpenOffice.org due to the license
not being permissive.

> As far as alienation, if the LOo community feels alienated, and I'm
> not saying that they don't have every right to, why is it directed to the
> ASF which never sought this donation, and from the get-go has tried to pull
> in the LOo organization?
>

It's actually LibreOffice (LO).
Whether the ASF tried or not to pull in the TDF, or how well it tried,
is something that I do not know.
Apparently, these are private discussions between the two organisations.

From what has been alluded to on the other mailing lists, apparently
Oracle wanted to transfer
the full copyrights of OpenOffice.org to the ASF. For a donation that
the ASF never sought,
it would have been ideal to accept the donation and then transfer the
full copyrights to the TDF.

>> 2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in
>> some unknown way.
>
> Please read the various posts and sites regarding the Apache Incubator
> which describes how this is done, and has been done, quite successfully,
> for loads of projects.
>

You are talking about how to build a smallish group of developers.
This office suite requires a bigger community, including support network,
localisation, usability and testing teams.

>> 3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs.
>
> We are users and developers. Anyone with even a rudimentary awareness
> of the ASF and how ASF projects work should realize that. In fact,
> the very 1st ASF project, the httpd server, should clearly indicate that
> it was as *users* that we used our developer skills to keep the project
> going.
>

The most well-known Apache project has a single user support mailing
that dropped to about 350 mails per month.
The ASF does not do software like office suites that end-users will
use on a daily basis.
Perhaps a library or non-GUI elements of an office suite, but not the GUI.

>> 4. Your infrastructure is based on Subversion (SVN) which will make it
>> difficult
>> for other to share code. Git is not even in the immediate plans.
>
> git is currently being investigated. svn allows others to share code.
>

It was said in the incubator list that it would take several months before
a DVCS is selected, and apparently it's open whether it will be git or
something else.
LibreOffice did the hard work converting into Git and cleaning up.
So, the ASF plans to do the whole work again from scratch, not now
but in several months in the future.
How can you merge patches between the two repositories if you have to deal
with minor changes due to the different cleanup (will ASF cleanup the OOo code)?

An office suite is of great interest to governments around the world.
They would
want to start their clones of the code and contribute. How would they deal with
the ASF version of the code?

What about ASF developer training to start using a DVCS?
Those IBM Lotus Symphony developers, do they use internally a DVCS?
Do they have experience working with the community? Because several Sun/Oracle
engineers did not have such training.

>> 5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.
>
> And why not?
>

Because an office suite is of great interest to governments and organisations
around the world. You would want to attract developers from around the world.
The IBM Lotus Symphony developers apparently are around or over 20 (is it?).
How is developer diversity going to work?

>> 6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see
>> any important user-centric software like OpenOffice.
>
> Agreed, if by "user" you mean "desktop end user." And the ASF has
> been quite upfront in saying that this is an area where TDF has
> some clear areas to provide insight/help/guidance, etc...
>
>>
>> The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears to 
>> be
>> so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus Symphony,
>> License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5
>>
>
> No, the essential need is that Oracle wanted someplace with a
> proven track record to donate the code to so they could then
> be rid of it. The essential need to the community is an open,
> well-established entity that is (hopefully) able to help the
> entire community to cooperate and co

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Sam Ruby  wrote:
...
> I will be totally transparent as to what my preference however is.  It
> is my fond hope that all of the participants will identify subsections
> of the code that they are willing to share the burden of maintenance
> with the larger community.  Direct participation in the development of
> that pool ensures that you can harvest that code back quickly and
> easily as there is no need to merge it with other changes that you
> held back.  Furthermore the extension points you need for your value
> add will be in the base.
>
> Part of this vision is also that participants don't block one another.
>  If IBM, for example, has a proprietary value add they should not be
> able to block somebody else from contributing substantially similar
> functionality to the ASF under a more liberal license.  Similarly, if
> LO has some CopyLeft value add, they should not be able to block
> others from contributing substantially similar functionality to the
> ASF under a more liberal license.
>
> Again, fully symmetrical.
>

What can the Apache Foundation provide to OpenOffice?
1. You start with zero community and you alienate the LibreOffice community.
2. You will start building a community at some point in the future in
some unknown way.
3. You are developers and can currently only deal with developer needs.
4. Your infrastructure is based on Subversion (SVN) which will make it
difficult
for other to share code. Git is not even in the immediate plans.
5. You are happy to get going with 20-30 core developers.
6. The Apache Foundation hosts over 150 projects and I fail to see
any important user-centric software like OpenOffice.

The essential need for the Apache Foundation involvement in this appears to be
so that IBM can continue to offer a proprietary product, IBM Lotus Symphony,
License Agreement at http://pastebin.com/uqbUTRg5

Is IBM is trying to replicate what Sun/Oracle had with StarOffice,
putting just enough resources
for their own needs in order to ship their product?

The Linux kernel is an amazing piece of software that it used in 92%
of Top500 supercomputers,
all sort of servers, mobile phones, most TVs and routers.
And still, there is a single Linux kernel project thanks to the
copyleft license.
Everyone works on Linux because they cannot keep away their own contributions;
they have to share them with the community.
Even the ARM architecture, where each ARM licensee went their own way,
is going to get its cleanup.
Because the code for all of them is already in the Linux kernel repository.

IBM makes money out of Linux by providing services. And IBM is even a
top contributor to the Linux kernel.
Would IBM hypothetically prefer to have the Linux kernel developed
under the Apache Foundation?

OO/LO are in this critical point where they can repeat the Linux
copyleft success story
and help ODF dominate the document formats.

OO/LO is a complicated piece of code and will probably require big
architectural changes.
Having an Apache OpenOffice and a LibreOffice will slow down progress
in major changes.

Simos

-- 
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: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Eduardo Alexandre  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my opinion, after all history involving OpenOffice, the ideal would be that
> this code was donated to the TDF. Everything under the GPL.
>
> With the software under the Apache license, we can not "work directly" in
> LibreOffice because they can not use our effort due to license GPL-Apache.
>
> Thus, we must direct our efforts to the software under the Apache license
> and "reuse" what we want to LibreOffice.
>
> But it will also allow our volunteer work is used by large companies to 
> "create
> " an unopened product for sale. We will be working for free.
>
> This is interesting? What is the advantage for the "community"?
>

IBM already has an OpenOffice product called IBM Lotus Symphony,
http://www.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony
Although based on OpenOffice, it is closed-source due to a special
deal with Sun.
If you try to download it, you are presented with a typical restricting EULA.

I believe that IBM, pushing for Apache OpenOffice, want to get the
best of the work of the community in order to enhance their product,
and start selling to business customers.
IBM employees claimed that they will make parts of Lotus Symphony
available to Apache OpenOffice, however it is not clear what is in
Lotus Symphony and what will make it into Apache OpenOffice.

With Apache OpenOffice, IBM would probably get an unfair advantage to
sell their proprietary OpenOffice. And this would be bad for the
community.

Just like the Linux kernel is copyleft (GPL) and everyone contributes
to a single project, OpenOffice/LibreOffice should be copyleft, so
that all work goes to one place and is able grow fast.

Simos

-- 
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: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software Foundation's Incubator

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Robert Holtzman  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:51:09AM -0700, NoOp wrote:
>> On 06/01/2011 09:23 AM, M Henri Day wrote:
>> > 2011/6/1 NoOp ...
>> >> More:
>> >> <
>> >> http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It will be interesting to see how this works out & how TDF will work
>> >> with ASF.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Fascinating, NoOp - wheels within wheels ! Thanks for posting this !...
>> >
>> > Henri
>> >
>>
>> TDF's Statement:
>> 
>
> TDF's statement included :
>
> "Today we welcome Oracle’s donation of code that has previously been
> proprietary to the Apache Software Foundation, it is great to see key
> user features released in a form that can be included into LibreOffice."
>
> Since when is OOo proprietary?
>

There are probably some proprietary components that were added to the
StarOffice product,
and did not make it to OpenOffice.org.

I would have preferred the above statement to have two commas placed
in there, as in

"Today we welcome Oracle’s donation of code, that has previously been
proprietary, to the Apache Software Foundation. It is great to see key
user features released in a form that can be included into
LibreOffice."

Simos

-- 
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] My application was rejected, ;-(

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> Le Wed, 04 May 2011 15:20:10 +0200,
> Florian Effenberger  a écrit :
>
>> Hi Italo,
>>
>> Italo Vignoli wrote on 2011-05-04 14.21:
>> > I think that we should definitely have something in place soon, and
>> > I personally like the term "fellow" which is already used
>> > frequently in the technology environment.
>>
>> the FSFE uses it a lot, and to me, it has a positive connotation.
>> Independent from the term we use, a program as Simon, you and others
>> have proposed is a good way to go, yep!
>>
>> Several board members of the German association also said something
>> like that is very interesting for business and enterprises -- many of
>> them work with enterprises daily.
>
>
> I like the term "supporters". Definitely something to implement in some
> time.
>

GNOME has the Friends of GNOME program,
http://www-old.gnome.org/friends/
with several levels of contribution, including the adoption of hackers.

Simos

-- 
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: Forums... again

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:28 AM,   wrote:
>>>How about the issue that I mentioned earlier?
>>>
>>>At http://www.sitedossier.com/ip/174.121.218.38 it
>>>shows that there are 858 websites hosted at the
>>>same dedicated server as LibreOfficeForum.org.
>
> Hi again,
>
> Yes, I am using a shared hosting platform. I never claimed otherwise. I
> have used DownTownHost shared hosting for several years now, and I have
> been extremely satisfied with the speed and reliability. It's definitely
> good enough for a newly starting low-traffic forum, and if traffic were to
> ever go through the roof I could always upgrade to a dedicated server. I
> have no idea how they have their server farm set up or how many sites are
> running behind that public IP, etc. But I assume that you realize that the
> other sites you linked to are NOT mine? I administer precisely one other
> site on this server related to a hobby, no more, no less. Sorry if I sound
> terse or offended. I'm not. But I do want to set the facts straight.
>

I got the impression from your initial post (you mentioned
that «Good hosting is not cheap») that you had a dedicated server,
and I assumed you were the owner of this shared hosting business.

It is good that this issue is now clear. It helps to discuss things first
when taking initiatives.

Simos

-- 
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: Forums... again

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:13 AM,   wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Thanks to everyone who has expressed a balanced, objective opinion about
> this.
>
> I don't want to spend a lot time here arguing about ads. I understand that
> it's a sensitive subject, I'm sorry that some people disagree, and I
> respect their opinions. But I would like to mention that I don't really
> have any control over the ad content, that is determined by Google. That
> being said, It seems rather strange to refer to Microsoft Office as
> "competition" and to show such a level of contempt toward it. I personally
> do not own, use, or even like Microsoft Office. But it isn't a taboo,
> shady, spammy, startup job. Like it or not, it's the industry standard
> still, and will continue to be so for a long time. Irrational hatred and
> attempts to obliterate all references to Microsoft or any other commercial
> project are counterproductive and don't seem to agree with the free spirit
> around LibreOffice. I have made a conscientious, informed, intelligent
> decision to use LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office, and no amount of
> forum ads will sway me. I would hope and expect that most other users of
> the forum will likewise have the presence of mind to make a rational
> decision based on their own needs.
>

How about the issue that I mentioned earlier?

At http://www.sitedossier.com/ip/174.121.218.38 it shows that there
are 858 websites
hosted at the same dedicated server as LibreOfficeForum.org.

Examples include:
http://www.1dayacuvuemoistreviews.com/ Ad website for Acuvue
products (contact lenses)
http://1dayacuvuereviews.com(ditto)
http://www.acuvueadvanceforastigmatismreviews.com/
http://www.acuvueadvancereviews.com/
http://www.acuvuebifocalreviews.com/
http://www.acuvuecontactlensreviews.com/
http://www.acuvueoasysforastigmatismreviews.com/
http://www.acuvueoasysforpresbyopiareviews.com/
http://www.1luv2ya.com/(I have no idea what this is about)
http://proxyblind.org/   (Free Anonymous Proxy)
http://www.chinatradestudy.com/   (Unnamed website carrying Reuters stories)
http://carsbuysell.ca/  (Classified ads, almost
empty website)
http://www.awm-search-engine-optimization.co.uk/   (redirects to SEO website)

And LibreOfficeForum.org is at No 238 in the list.

Apart from the ads that you have on LibreOfficeForum.org you also benefit
from the increase in the ranking by Google for all the websites, due
to hosting LibreOfficeForum.org.

What's the business plan in running the dedicated server at
174.121.218.38 and how does LibreOfficeForum.org
fit to all these?

It makes it quite uncomfortable to host a free and open-source project
on an ad-supported platform.
With what I currently know, I would opt for no association to
LibreOfficeForum.org.

Simos

-- 
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: Forums... again

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:50 PM,  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I am the creator of LibreOfficeForum.org. I'd just like to set a few
> things straight.
>
> ...

> 2. Ads. Yes, we have them. They are only Adsense text ads, I do not and
> will never permit image ads or 3rd party sponsor ads. I think this is a
> responsible and simple method of keeping the forum running if it gets hit
> with more traffic. Good hosting is not cheap. I realize that some users
> hate ads with a passion. Most of those users are already running an ad
> blocker, so they will never see the ads anyway. And additionally, any
> registered user can disable the ads with two checkboxes in his user
> preferences.
>

You probably use a dedicated host from
http://www.softlayer.com/dedicated/(at least $119 per month)
because
$ host www.libreofficeforum.org
libreofficeforum.org has address 174.121.218.38

and
$ host 174.121.218.38
38.218.121.174.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
26.da.79ae.static.theplanet.com.

and finally www.theplanet.com leads to www.softlayer.com.

The same IP address that has libreofficeforum.org (174.121.218.38) hosts
about 430 websites.
See
http://whois.domaintools.com/174.121.218.38

Examples of websites are
http://www.1dayacuvuemoistreviews.com/
http://www.1luv2ya.com/

I think the issue is that for a free and open-source project, it's easy to
get fast Internet access and a good server, donated by some University or a
company. A group of volunteers can maintain it in the beginning. Therefore,
there is no need to go into issues such as paying from your own money for a
server and supplementing it with ads.

Simos

-- 
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] Competition in the EU regarding pre-installed Windows

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:36 PM, M Henri Day  wrote:
> 2011/4/22 Simos Xenitellis 
>
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 2:03 PM, M Henri Day  wrote:
>> > 2011/4/22 Simos Xenitellis 
>> >
>> >> FFII and the AFUL (two free-software associations) have started a
>> >> crowd-sourcing effort
>> >> to provide information to the European Commission Competition agency
>> about
>> >> the lack of choice for the consumers when it comes to computers and
>> >> compulsory pre-installed Windows.
>> >>
>> >> Original press-releases:
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/Share%20your%20operating%20system%20bundling%20tales%20with%20the%20EU
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://aful.org/communiques/share-your-operating-system-bundling-tales-with-the-eu
>> >>
>> >> Here is my take to simplify the message,
>> >> http://simos.info/blog/archives/1198
>> >>
>> >> How is this relevant to LibreOffice? The source of the problem is the
>> >> bundling of Microsoft
>> >> Windows to the new computers. The manufacturers get discounts for the
>> >> licenses if they support
>> >> only Windows, if they promote only Windows on their websites and ads,
>> and
>> >> so on.
>> >> If this relationship weakens, we may see a chance for LibreOffice on
>> >> new computers,
>> >> or Linux computers that obviously have LibreOffice.
>> >>
>> >> tl;dr: Visit
>> http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html
>> >> to report cases where you could not buy a computer without Windows,
>> >> while you had not need for Windows.
>> >>
>> >> Simos
>> >>
>> >
>> > «If this relationship weakens, we may see a chance for LibreOffice on new
>> > computers, or Linux computers that obviously have LibreOffice.»
>> >
>> > 'tis a consummation. Devoutly to be wished. But somehow I find it
>> difficult
>> > to envisage either Joaquín Almunia eller Alexander Italianer going that
>> > far
>> >
>>
>> I do not understand the comment.
>>
>> What we do is report to the EU the cases we know, where we were forced
>> to buy a computer
>> with pre-installed Windows, although we did not need Windows (either
>> we use Linux
>> or we already had a Windows license).
>>
>> It's up to the Competition agency of the European Commission to take
>> appropriate action.
>> That's their job.
>> Our job, and the initiative from the FFII and AFUL, is to report cases
>> to the EC Competition agency.
>>
>> Simos
>>
>
> Just pointing out, Simos, that I don't share what seems to be your
> confidence in the ability - or for that matter, the intention - of the
> Competition Agency to do what we both agree is its job
>

Well, you have to substantiate this claim, otherwise it appears that
you are trying (unintentionally) to derail this discussion.
We know that government agencies might be slow to react, but the way
you are phrasing your view is that the Competition agency will simply
not examine and discard any report.

Simos

-- 
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] Competition in the EU regarding pre-installed Windows

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 2:03 PM, M Henri Day  wrote:
> 2011/4/22 Simos Xenitellis 
>
>> FFII and the AFUL (two free-software associations) have started a
>> crowd-sourcing effort
>> to provide information to the European Commission Competition agency about
>> the lack of choice for the consumers when it comes to computers and
>> compulsory pre-installed Windows.
>>
>> Original press-releases:
>>
>> http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/Share%20your%20operating%20system%20bundling%20tales%20with%20the%20EU
>>
>> http://aful.org/communiques/share-your-operating-system-bundling-tales-with-the-eu
>>
>> Here is my take to simplify the message,
>> http://simos.info/blog/archives/1198
>>
>> How is this relevant to LibreOffice? The source of the problem is the
>> bundling of Microsoft
>> Windows to the new computers. The manufacturers get discounts for the
>> licenses if they support
>> only Windows, if they promote only Windows on their websites and ads, and
>> so on.
>> If this relationship weakens, we may see a chance for LibreOffice on
>> new computers,
>> or Linux computers that obviously have LibreOffice.
>>
>> tl;dr: Visit http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html
>> to report cases where you could not buy a computer without Windows,
>> while you had not need for Windows.
>>
>> Simos
>>
>
> «If this relationship weakens, we may see a chance for LibreOffice on new
> computers, or Linux computers that obviously have LibreOffice.»
>
> 'tis a consummation. Devoutly to be wished. But somehow I find it difficult
> to envisage either Joaquín Almunia eller Alexander Italianer going that
> far
>

I do not understand the comment.

What we do is report to the EU the cases we know, where we were forced
to buy a computer
with pre-installed Windows, although we did not need Windows (either
we use Linux
or we already had a Windows license).

It's up to the Competition agency of the European Commission to take
appropriate action.
That's their job.
Our job, and the initiative from the FFII and AFUL, is to report cases
to the EC Competition agency.

Simos

-- 
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

[tdf-discuss] Competition in the EU regarding pre-installed Windows

[Simos Xenitellis]

FFII and the AFUL (two free-software associations) have started a
crowd-sourcing effort
to provide information to the European Commission Competition agency about
the lack of choice for the consumers when it comes to computers and
compulsory pre-installed Windows.

Original press-releases:
http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/Share%20your%20operating%20system%20bundling%20tales%20with%20the%20EU
http://aful.org/communiques/share-your-operating-system-bundling-tales-with-the-eu

Here is my take to simplify the message,
http://simos.info/blog/archives/1198

How is this relevant to LibreOffice? The source of the problem is the
bundling of Microsoft
Windows to the new computers. The manufacturers get discounts for the
licenses if they support
only Windows, if they promote only Windows on their websites and ads, and so on.
If this relationship weakens, we may see a chance for LibreOffice on
new computers,
or Linux computers that obviously have LibreOffice.

tl;dr: Visit http://ec.europa.eu/competition/forms/consumer_form_en.html
to report cases where you could not buy a computer without Windows,
while you had not need for Windows.

Simos

-- 
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

[tdf-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Ellison's Oracle washes hands of OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Tom Davies  wrote:
>
> 
> From: planas 
> To: us...@libreoffice.org
> Sent: Mon, 18 April, 2011 4:28:00
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Ellison's Oracle washes hands of 
> OpenOffice
>
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 21:41 -0400, Wayne Borean wrote:
>
>> In that case, you can see where I'm leading the conversation, and why my
>> concept of 'Free Software Darwinism' could be really important to us, and
>> scary as hell to Microsoft.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:12 PM, plino  wrote:
>>
>> > @Wayne
>> >
>> > Being a biologist, I find your Evolution parallel quite interesting.
>> >
>> > Answering your previous question: of course IBM has it's own flavour of
>> > Office (based on OpenOffice in fact):  it's called IBM Lotus Symphony
>> > http://www-03.ibm.com/software/lotus/symphony/home.nsf/products
>> >
>> > Enjoy! ;)
>> >
>> > --
>> > View this message in context:
>> >
>>http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Ellison-s-Oracle-washes-hands-of-OpenOffice-tp2826546p2832723.html
>>
>> > Sent from the Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org
>> > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
>> > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/
>> > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
>> > deleted
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> Wayne
>
> I would think some the hardware vendors would promote FOSS more. They
> can benefit from the hardware sales. I can see why MS hates FOSS, they
> are almost a pure software vendor and FOSS hurts their sales.
>
> Jay Lozier
> jsloz...@gmail.com
>

Hello,

Am gonna try two things with this e-mail,
1. As noted earlier, the us...@documentfoundation.org list is for user
support and not for discussions. Therefore, I am moving to the discuss
list.

>
> Hi :)
> unfortunately hardware vendors profit from selling MS pre-installed and the 
> more
> junk they can have pre-installed the more they profit.  MS sells them special
> licences to install at a discount bargain rate.  If hardware vendors put Free
> Software on instead then their profit margins would be lower.
>

2. This has been claimed so many times but still it does not make it
correct. The difference is in the details.

Computer manufacturers build computers with different hardware and
software components. For example, Intel produces CPUs, and it was
revealed recently that they gave special discounts to Dell so that
they get exclusivity,
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/27/news/companies/dell_settlement_intel.fortune/index.htm

The case with Microsoft is that computer manufacturers can stay in
line and follow special programs to co-advertise Windows (“Dell
recommends Windows”) and use Windows exclusively for their products,
and thus get generous discounts over the standard OEM Windows price.
This is the anticompetitive practice that hurts the market.
The exact details of such an agreement has not been leaked yet, so
that we can have hard evidence. The part that looks to be in these
agreements is that if the manufacturer decides to go exclusive with
Windows for their products, they get even better discounts.

> If you try to buy something with NO software on it then the hardware actually
> costs more so people buy stuff that already had MS pre-installed even if they
> don't want to use it and then wipe the MS stuff to install Linux or Bsd or
> something.
>

The manufacturer is in a position to sell you a computer cheaper if it
does not have Windows (or any other OS). You can see in the Asian
markets manufacturers such as Acer, Asus and HP offering the same
computer with or without Windows, no questions asked.
The issue that the manufacturers have to deal with is that, if they
some a computer (in US, EU) without Windows, they do not get the best
discount for their Windows licenses, FOR their other computers with
Windows preinstalled.

See some examples at http://simos.info/blog/archives/1021

Simos

-- 
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 and a StackExchange support website

[Simos Xenitellis]

2011/4/18 Fabián Rodríguez :
> On 04/17/2011 10:21 AM, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The new hotness for a support website would be to have a StackExchange
>> website for LibreOffice.
>> For example,
>>    * http://wordpress.stackexchange.com/  -  aiming at developers,
>> advanced users
>>    * http://askubuntu.com/ - aiming at users, also advanced users
>>
>> Here is a list of all StackExchange support websites, all 48 of them,
>> http://stackexchange.com/sites
>>
>> What is StackExchange? Read at
>> http://stackexchange.com/about
>>
>> In a nutshell, these are type of support websites that highlight the
>> questions, and provide many opportunities
>> to get these questions answered, with quality answers. The users
>> accumulate points for their participation,
>> which they then can use up to bring attention to their own questions
>> that they may have.
>> In addition, as users accumulate points, they get more
>> responsibilities in self-moderating the website.
>>
>> The most well-known of those websites is StackOverflow,
>> http://stackoverflow.com/
>> with about a million members, and more than a million questions answered.
>>
>> I am not affiliated with StackExchange, just posting this to see
>> whether there is interest.
>>
>> Simos
>>
> I posted about doing this on shapado.com a few months ago, take a look:
> http://libreoffice.shapado.com/
>
> The mailing list archives will also tell you more.
>
> I think it would be unfortunate to use a non-free SaaS to do this,
> specially when Shapado can do more.
>
> I haven't been able to put much more time on this lately, but surely
> making it an official resource would help it gain traction.
>

Thanks for the link. I had no idea about shapado.com
(or http://gitorious.org/shapado )

There has been a similar discussion for AskUbuntu and UbuntuAsk,
http://meta.askubuntu.com/questions/302/why-should-i-use-this-site-instead-of-ubuntu-ask-shapado
with insightful comments.

To be able to get Libreoffice.Shapado (or one at StackExchange) become popular,
you need to make a group that will devote time to answer questions for
the first few weeks.
And at the same time promote as much as possible. The positive issue
with StackExchange is that you get the spillover from the other
StackExchange websites.
In any case, it's a hard task to motivate people to spend their time.

Thanks,
Simos

-- 
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

[tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and a StackExchange support website

[Simos Xenitellis]

Hi All,

The new hotness for a support website would be to have a StackExchange
website for LibreOffice.
For example,
   * http://wordpress.stackexchange.com/  -  aiming at developers,
advanced users
   * http://askubuntu.com/ - aiming at users, also advanced users

Here is a list of all StackExchange support websites, all 48 of them,
http://stackexchange.com/sites

What is StackExchange? Read at
http://stackexchange.com/about

In a nutshell, these are type of support websites that highlight the
questions, and provide many opportunities
to get these questions answered, with quality answers. The users
accumulate points for their participation,
which they then can use up to bring attention to their own questions
that they may have.
In addition, as users accumulate points, they get more
responsibilities in self-moderating the website.

The most well-known of those websites is StackOverflow,
http://stackoverflow.com/
with about a million members, and more than a million questions answered.

I am not affiliated with StackExchange, just posting this to see
whether there is interest.

Simos

-- 
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] Get and appove: recommended Soundfile pronouncing "LibreOffice"

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Friedrich Strohmaier
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Friedrich Strohmaier schrieb:
>
> [..]
>
>> My proposal:
>> lets collect proposals for soundfiles pronouncing "LibreOffice" and
>> have a simple voting for the one we point to, if people ask.
>> This can be Files created by community members or some
>> found in the internet. The first may be preferable due to license
>> issues.
>
> Here You can hear me saying "LibreOffice":
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/e/e2/Libreoffice_ger-tongue_fs.mp3
>

This helps!

I think the initial concern is with some Asian languages which do not
have the 'r' sound,
therefore there is difficulty in pronouncing the first part, 'Libre'.
Typically, the 'r' comes out as an 'l'.
Therefore, 'Libre' = 'Li' + 'Bre', where 'Li' is as in 'LI-ma' (the
city), and 'Bre' as in 'BREA-d' (bread).

Simos

-- 
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: Suggestion to expand user base: enable screenplay formatting with LibreOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Marc Paré  wrote:
> Le 2010-11-15 00:43, Andy Brown a écrit :
>
>>>
>>> Re: music through Draw for musical notation. I think this would only
>>> be of value for the most basic of work. There are already many good
>>> music software programmes out in the OSS world. I don't think that
>>> LibreOffice could ever make a name for itself this way as it is the
>>> wrong tool for music making/creating.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>
>> Run a search for music on the OOo extension and template sites, maybe
>> eye opening. :)
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>
> Thanks. Yes, these are good static pages. I thought you were suggesting
> something more involved. Actually, I use the music paper template when I
> teach it at school. Save on buying a pad. We could have more of these
> templates made available to the template repository quite easily.
>
> Re: extensions. The LilyPond extension is interesting but very few people in
> current university/music recording settings use it. It would be a very
> daunting extension/programme for regular users. Most use Sibelius or Finale.
> But sure, if someone could create a WYSIWYG notation extension, that would
> be quite a feat. If all it could do is notate and allow for type, that would
> be enough for first timers to use and with the amount of people who use LO,
> the user base is already built-in. Does it sound like I am convincing
> myself? Sounds like a good idea now. All we need is a willing dev.
>

Another way to describe this is that we want LibreOffice to have a mode
that enforces Styles and Formatting/Template for a document?
As far as I understand, currently LibreOffice does not force you
to follow a template to the letter. A developer could act on such a request,
and we could describe how the UI should behave to make their job easier.

If an extension can perform fully the work of the feature, such as
Screenwright(R),
then it makes sense to keep it as an extension. Is Screenwright(R)
merely a template file?
If so, then request «Please add the Screenwright(R) template as part
of the standard LibreOffice distribution».
I expect that Screenwright(R) would make use of such custom toolbar,
so it is more for an extension.
The thing you should avoid is that if Screenwright(R) requires code
changes, in a similar ways that addons
in Firefox enhance the browser, then it is best to keep
Screenwright(R) as an extension.
By keeping Screenwright(R) as an extension, you can modify and enhance
it at your own speed,
which is much faster than that speed of the releases of LibreOffice.
Is Screenwright(R) a done job and will never receive an update, or
even translation? This is the criterion.

Hope this helps,
Simos

--
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] Re: x86_64 Windows build

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:

> On 2010-11-05 10:59 AM, Michel Gagnon wrote:
> > As for becoming useful on the phone, I think the cell-phone platform
> > limits a lot the editing functions available. One possibility would be
> > to have a no-frills word processor that would remember all image and
> > style information, yet allow the cell-phone user to write the text as is.
>
> This imo has the best chance of ever making it...
>
> 1. Create a simple viewer
>
> 2. Allow basic *content* editing, that perfectly preserves all else.
>
> Still a huge job, but not so much as simply converting LibO to run on
> mobile devices.
>
>
Per mailing list etiquette, it's better to start a new thread to discuss
mobile LibO.
This thread is about what needs to be done to get native Win64 LibO,
and how to find developers to join the effort.

Simos

-- 
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] unable to reply quickly to mailing list posts

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:39 PM, e-letter  wrote:

> On 04/11/2010, 
> discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
> >
> wrote:
> > Topics (messages 2591 through 2620):
> ...
> > [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
> >   2620 - Sebastian Spaeth 
> >
> >
> >
> The text above is the entire verbatim content of the mail message text
> box when the 'reply' function is activated. Please change the mailing
> list manager.
>
>
Since you are using GMail, it makes perfect sense to avoid the digest mode.

GMail does a good job in following the threads.
In addition, you can setup GMail so that these e-mails are automatically
assigned a label,
and they are archived. To do so,
1. open one such e-mail (for example, this one that you are currently
reading).
2. Click on the ▼ button (top-right of this e-mail frame) and select "Filter
messages like this".
3. GMail automatically identified the mailing list ID (GMail understands
mailing lists) and has added the correct filter.
4. Click on Test to verify anyway. Then click on Next.
5. Now, select a) Archive the e-mail b) Add label - Create new label such as
"DocumentFoundation Discuss", c) click to apply the filter to the existing
matching e-mails, and Submit.

That's it! Your Inbox will be cleared up. You can either read the list
e-mails by selecting the label, or you can click on All Mail to see them all
together.

Simos

--
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

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Italo Vignoli  wrote:

...snip...

> It would be nice if our emails - mine was sent on Tuesday in response to
> my "resignment" decided by an Oracle employee - are answered in due time.
>

I think you mentioned the 'resignment' several times, however it is
good to explain
what actually happened. In English you would not use 'resignment'.

1. Did an Oracle employee 'sack' you? Did they tell you that you are
now not part of the council anymore?
2. Was some decision taken that forced you to resign?
3. Did an Oracle employee ask you (politely or not) to resign and you
just resigned?

Simos

-- 
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] LibO roadmap?

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM, j.martin.pedersen
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> LibreOffice is an exciting development!
>
> As a Free Software user and advocate who spends time in academia this is
> a crucial aspect of getting anyone to use LO:
>
>> As Writer developer I would be really interested in improving that...
>> though I have no idea of the requirements behing bibliographic works.
>> Would you be able to get some people helping to describe what needs to
>> be done? If you can find some other developers interested in hacking
>> that part, I'm ready to help them getting started!
>
> Whenever you suggest OOo or now LO to academics and students, they ask:
> "What about my Endnotes?"
>
> Until there is an integrated GUI that somewhat looks and feels like -
> and of course is 100% compatible with - Endnotes, social science and
> humanities academics will never migrate. They are locked in. With a
> great bibliographic component in LO, they could be unlocked.
>
> Looking forward to seeing what will happen,
>

Just to add here that a new program for handling bibliographies is Mendeley,
http://www.mendeley.com/
which has packages for both 32-bit and 64-bit of Linux.
It can communicate with OOo, though I did not try this.

Simos

-- 
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] PDF forms and edit

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Marc Paré  wrote:

> Le 2010-10-10 07:49, Andreas Mantke a écrit :
>
>  Hi,
>>
>> Am Sonntag, 10. Oktober 2010, 13:29:28 schrieb Miguel Mayol Tur:
>>
>>> As PDF is a open standard, there would be a good idea not to depend of
>>>
>>> propietary software to make and fill PDFs forms and edit PDF documents.
>>>
>>>
>>> And LIBRE OFFICE SHOULD do that.
>>>
>>
>> there are a lot of not proprietary pdf reading programms available, that
>> ca
>> n do this
>> work., i.e. Okular on Linux.
>> In my opinion there is currently no need to develop such a function insi
de
>> LO.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andreas
>>
>
> Actually, LibO (OpenOffice) has very powerful "form" creating tools and i
t
> follows a recognized ISO document standard (
> http://www.iso.org/iso/fr/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1004). It would mak
e
> sense, to me, to try to advertise this fact and to encourage the use and
> posting of forms made with with LibO.
>
> Then if people wanted to modify the forms, they would just have to modify
> the forms, it would just be a question of re-working the LibO file.
>
> IMHO, this is what we should be encouraging.
>
> LibO also does a great job at creating forms and then exporting these to
> .pdf format (.pdf is also an ISO document standard (
> http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1141). If, for example
> you are creating a form for a group, you can send them both the .pdf form
> (there is no real way to modify this form in whole) and the LibO file tha
t
> you used to create the form. The LibO file could then be used to modify t
he
> form is the group wanted.
>
>
What we need to do here is to prepare the technical details so that the Lib
O
marketing team can push this important feature.

At least for now it is easier to reuse the platform PDF viewer instead of
adding such functionality in LibO.
That is, we suggest for each platform which PDF readers have the ability to
save the completed PDF forms.
Then talk that LibO can create and manage those documents that produce the
PDF forms.

Simos


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

Re: [tdf-discuss] Document Foundation - list archive - emails in clear

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Florian Effenberger
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 08.10.2010 um 10:13 schrieb Friedrich Strohmaier:
>
>>> I believe this should be prevented. I just found in docs that there
> is
>>> a SPAMMODE option:
>>> http://mhonarc.org/MHonArc/doc/resources/spammode.html
>>
>> +1
>>
>
> Honestly, I disagree. Hiding mail addresses really doesn't help that
> much, and to me, the disadvantages (like being unable to contact someone
> directly from the archives) are larger than the advantages you think it
> has.
>
> I'm happy to switch if the majority wants that, but honestly, it doesn't
> help a bit. It's simply worth NOTHING.
>

I concur that. A similar situation exists with the Ubuntu mailing lists,
where e-mails are available also in the mbox format, which is much worse.
There was a discussion (I initiated it) with no change in the practice.
The benefit there is that you can import the mbox archives in your favorite
mail client and perform searches, etc.

What we do here is add a best practice with regards to e-mail.
In addition to the usual where we avoid top-posting, quoting excessively, etc,
what we also do is create a new e-mail address just for mailing list
participation.
This new e-mail address is separate from our regular e-mail address.
For example, see the e-mail address I use now.
Personally, I think that Gmail serves well for such a mailing list mail address,
with good spam control and mailing list filtering,
and you can select to hide the spam folder from view.

Simos
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/

Re: [tdf-discuss] List-ID of this Mailinglist has changed - intentionally?

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Friedrich Strohmaier
 wrote:
> Hello listadmins, all,
>
> ID of this mailinglist has changed, so the filter doesn't grip anymore.
>
> it was:
> List-ID: 
>
> Now it is:
> List-ID: 
>
> Accident or intetion?
>

The first e-mail you received from the discuss mailing list (and came
from the mailing list software) welcoming you has the
'discuss@documentfoundation.org' list id.

The subsequence e-mails from users have the list id
'discuss.documentfoundation.org'.

Looks like a feature rather than a bug.

Simos
-- 
To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to 
discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be 
deleted.
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/