Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi Rob, On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I have no idea. But my impression was that Oracle was not withholding any relevant trademarks or domain names from us. Thanks. We will get concrete answers later some day I hope :) Thanks, khirano
Re: Put test case to wiki
Hi Am 28.11.11 08:51, schrieb Yan Ji: Currently, there is no test management tool available for AOO. So we have nowhere to put test case. For AOO 3.4 release, can we put test case to wiki? and which folder should we put them into? Anyone can help? Maybe you put it under Build-QA-Plan Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Put test case to wiki
2011/11/28 Raphael Bircher r.birc...@gmx.ch Hi Am 28.11.11 08:51, schrieb Yan Ji: Currently, there is no test management tool available for AOO. So we have nowhere to put test case. For AOO 3.4 release, can we put test case to wiki? and which folder should we put them into? Anyone can help? Maybe you put it under Build-QA-Plan I don't think this foloder is fit for test cases. My understanding the testing defined Build-QA-Plan is at smoke test level. Suggest create fnew sub older under Release-QA-Plan and place related cases there. My question is if specific cases are needed at current time? Or only some cases for general usage are enough, can you explain more detail about the test cases? Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Kay, I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing a re-checkout. On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all accepted and incubator projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree. So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we will ahve copies. Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take advantage of this. Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree. however, I know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now. If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I am correct for now without double checking. I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less impact to the ASF infrastructure. So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can get the legacy accepted projects in the ooo-site tree for further evaluation by SUnday. Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects. Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I missing any other active N-L projects?) then I am for removing all N-L now. I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final push. I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our current N-L site is outdated. -- Arthur Buijs
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi Jim, On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote: I think it's time that an Open Letter to the entire Open Office ecosystem (companies, entities, individuals, etc...) be drafted that sets the record straight. And I volunteer to drive this task... When you draft Open Letter to the entire OpenOffice.org ecosystem including OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 users, please include simple and clear messages for the world users. Like - OpenOffice.org project is now Apache OpenOffice.org (incubating). - Apache OpenOffice project will develop and release Apache OpenOffice. - The ASF will keep holding OpenOffice.org trademark. Thanks, khirano
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Nov 28, 2011 8:05 AM, Kazunari Hirano khir...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rob, On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: I have no idea. But my impression was that Oracle was not withholding any relevant trademarks or domain names from us. Thanks. We will get concrete answers later some day I hope :) A question to tradema...@apache.org will yield an answer quickly if anyone needs to know. Ross Thanks, khirano
Re: Linux Build breaks in comphelper (Ubuntu 11.10, gcc 4.6.1
On 11/26/11 4:33 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Mathias, On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 03:56:20PM +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: Hi, are there any recent changes in our build system that haven't been done for unxlngx6 in solenv/inc/gbuild? When I try to build, comphelper can't link. There are so many symbols missing so that I assume that the libraries are just not found. I remember some changes around library postfix/prefix stuff. Perhaps unxlngx6 was forgotten in gbuild?! no, the issues where found there, and fixed on 25/sept rev. 1175305 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1175305 I'm building on Fedora 64 bits without any problems. Ive read others were building in Ubuntu without troubles. So no idea what can be your problem, may be you can post the log with the errors check your linker, we had the same problem and André figured out that the linker caused this problem. Your linker should point to ld.gold (binutils-gold) /usr/bin/ld - ld.gold Juergen
Re: Put test case to wiki
2011.11.28. 9:23 keltezéssel, xia zhao írta: 2011/11/28 Raphael Bircherr.birc...@gmx.ch Hi Am 28.11.11 08:51, schrieb Yan Ji: Currently, there is no test management tool available for AOO. So we have nowhere to put test case. For AOO 3.4 release, can we put test case to wiki? and which folder should we put them into? Anyone can help? Maybe you put it under Build-QA-Plan I don't think this foloder is fit for test cases. My understanding the testing defined Build-QA-Plan is at smoke test level. Suggest create fnew sub older under Release-QA-Plan and place related cases there. We lost test cases stored centrally, anybody has a backup of them? Or locally stored versions somewhere in OOo site? My question is if specific cases are needed at current time? Or only some cases for general usage are enough, can you explain more detail about the test cases? I found the test case, and test case template on old OOo wiki page. I don't know how useful this. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Test_case_specification http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Test_case_specification_template It can be a starting point, may be not in HTML, if we put it into cwiki. Zoltan Greetings Raphael -- My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi Ross, On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: A question to tradema...@apache.org will yield an answer quickly if anyone needs to know. Thanks. I will subscribe tradema...@apache.org and post my question. http://sites.google.com/site/khirano/-magokoro-project I and my project are planning to create OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 CD and design CD label in cooperation with Japan Open Source Software Promotion Forum. http://openoffice.exblog.jp/13617785/ I am wondering what I should do with OpenOffice.org trademark. http://ooo-site.apache.org/images/ooo-logo.png Can I use this on the CD label? http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/apache-incubator-logo.png Should I put this on the CD label? I will ask tradema...@apache.org :) Thanks, khirano
Re: gnumake4 integration
On 25.11.2011 23:39, Gavin McDonald wrote: [...] I have finished building on Fedora 16 64 bits, and fixing some issues. I started building on WinXP (a VM, so it takes 5 hrs). Sorry to hijack, where are the requirements and build instructions for building on XP (and Win 7 too if possible.) http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide/Building_on_Windows#software_requirements Herbert
Re: GPL'd dictionaries (was Re: ftp.services.openoffice.org?)
On 27.11.2011 22:12, Rob Weir wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:25 AM, Andre Fischera...@a-w-f.de wrote: Hi Rob, all, On 24.11.2011 18:50, Rob Weir wrote: On Nov 24, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.orgwrote: Hi Ariel; If the comment on the Wiki has been approved by Apache legal and not just an interpretation you guys are right. Weak copy left (category-b) like MPL may be included in our binary releases but not our source releases. We can also automate downloading the source for these modules as a non default build option. We are not required to move MPL code from SVN. But we should be removing GPL code since we cannot distribute that in source or binary releases. I would like to clarify what it means that MPL code is part of the SVN repository. At the moment, most category-b and -x code is provided in one of several archives that are downloaded during the configure process from http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries. That means that up to now these archives have not been part of the SVN repository. The dictionaries are one exception to this. They are located in the main/dictionaries directory. Correct. The http://hg.services.openoffice.org/binaries server is not expected to live for much longer so we need a new home for these archives. We are in the process (almost finished) to remove the category-x code. For the remaining category-b code the SVN repository would be a convenient place, but every other server would do as well (from a technical standpoint). Right. But since we don't have an http or ftp server that is not backed by SVN, the logical place is our SVN. And honestly I don't think we really have a choice here. Remember, we're modifying/patching MPL code. That means our modifications must be made available under MPL. And clause 3.2 of the MPL requires that we make these patches available electronically for at least 12 months. We need to be serious about this obligation, and tossing code off to an external site, like Apache Extras does not sound very serious. We have the obligation to make our changes available. This is our obligation, not Google's . I was just trying to point out that a) MPL code is not intermingled with the rest of our code but clearly separated and that b) the tar balls are/will be stored on SVN servers for technical reasons, not because we want it to be. As discussed previously we really need to start pushing our patches upstream. But we know there is no guarantee that the patches will be accepted or integrated in a timely fashion. So the approach of patching MPL code does not appear to being going away quickly. But we do need to monitor this and make sure that we don't cross over the threshold into actively developing MPL code at Apache. I agree. -Andre That means that there already is a clear distinction between category-a and category-b code. This distinction makes it easier to make a source release by basically just putting the main/ and extras/ trees into an archive. No sorting out the category-b code is necessary. Right. And by storing source tarballs and patches we actively discourage and make it more difficult to modify. This, plus segregating them by tree discourages intermingling. And we also satisfy our MPL obligations. Short of not using these components at all, I don't see a better way of handling this. -Rob Regards, Andre I tend to be pretty strict in this type of issues so please excuse me for scaring you all ;-). Pedro. --- On Thu, 11/24/11, Ariel Constenla-Hailearie...@apache.orgwrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 06:29:42AM -0800, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Hunspell is still the main spellchecker in AOO but we cannot ship the italian dictionary and even the MPL dictionaries have to be removed from the repository. Exactly, what do you mean by saying You can go ahead and kill hunspell from the tree? We are not allowed to ship copyleft (strong or weak) in source releases so the same rules about not download+patching copyleft apply to hunspell. Unless I misunderstood something? https://cwiki.apache.org/OOOUSERS/ipclearance.html Task 1: Clarify legal usage of Category B (eg MPL) libraries Binary builds of libraries can be shipped with binary release of AOO. Source code of libraries can remain on an Apache server but (like ext_sources of old OOo.) BUT * source code of libraries is not shipped in a source release of AOO * instead it can be downloaded and built during bootstrap, but only when developer uses a configure option that is off by default [end of quote] that's why rev. 1204995 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1204995 introduces: --enable-hunspell - off by default --enable-hyphen - off by default * Category B sources are not included * Using system/building Category B libraries is off by default Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Moving into mentor-idle state
Hello folks, I am currently a bit exhausted and would like to make some kind of a break with ooo. I don't want to leave completely, but I want to take the opportunity not to read so much e-mails :-) and relax a for a while. If you think that I might be of some help, please ping me directly and I will help of course. Would be nice to see a short ACK from one of the mentors and one of the ppmc. Cheers Christian -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Moving into mentor-idle state
No problem Christian. Take it easy and come back to active status as you see fit. Thanks for all the help here in the past! - Original Message - From: Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:48 AM Subject: Moving into mentor-idle state Hello folks, I am currently a bit exhausted and would like to make some kind of a break with ooo. I don't want to leave completely, but I want to take the opportunity not to read so much e-mails :-) and relax a for a while. If you think that I might be of some help, please ping me directly and I will help of course. Would be nice to see a short ACK from one of the mentors and one of the ppmc. Cheers Christian -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: Linux Build breaks in comphelper (Ubuntu 11.10, gcc 4.6.1
On 28.11.2011 09:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/26/11 4:33 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Mathias, On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 03:56:20PM +0100, Mathias Bauer wrote: Hi, are there any recent changes in our build system that haven't been done for unxlngx6 in solenv/inc/gbuild? When I try to build, comphelper can't link. There are so many symbols missing so that I assume that the libraries are just not found. I remember some changes around library postfix/prefix stuff. Perhaps unxlngx6 was forgotten in gbuild?! no, the issues where found there, and fixed on 25/sept rev. 1175305 http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revisionrevision=1175305 I'm building on Fedora 64 bits without any problems. Ive read others were building in Ubuntu without troubles. So no idea what can be your problem, may be you can post the log with the errors check your linker, we had the same problem and André figured out that the linker caused this problem. Credit for this goes to Herbert (hdu) -Andre Your linker should point to ld.gold (binutils-gold) /usr/bin/ld - ld.gold Juergen
Re: Moving into mentor-idle state
On 28 November 2011 09:48, Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com wrote: Hello folks, I am currently a bit exhausted and would like to make some kind of a break with ooo. I don't want to leave completely, but I want to take the opportunity not to read so much e-mails :-) and relax a for a while. If you think that I might be of some help, please ping me directly and I will help of course. Thanks for not just going AWOL Christian - very much appreciated. Enjoy what downtime you can manage. Ross
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
On 27 Nov 2011, at 20:47, Rob Weir wrote: Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already throwing out. For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for historical reasons? SISSL is documented permanently at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/sisslpl.php and we could either advise gnu.org to change their link or redirect there ourselves. S.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:57 AM, Kazunari Hirano khir...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Ross, On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com wrote: A question to tradema...@apache.org will yield an answer quickly if anyone needs to know. Thanks. I will subscribe tradema...@apache.org and post my question. http://sites.google.com/site/khirano/-magokoro-project I and my project are planning to create OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 CD and design CD label in cooperation with Japan Open Source Software Promotion Forum. http://openoffice.exblog.jp/13617785/ I am wondering what I should do with OpenOffice.org trademark. http://ooo-site.apache.org/images/ooo-logo.png Can I use this on the CD label? http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/apache-incubator-logo.png Should I put this on the CD label? If you are looking for permission to use the trademarks, then you should follow the instructions here: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html The PPMC approves first, and then sends to Trademarks@ -Rob I will ask tradema...@apache.org :) Thanks, khirano
Piracy - Fwd: [documentation-dev] look this please
Anybody know who pursues pirates like this? --/tj/ Original Message Subject:[documentation-dev] look this please Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:31:43 +0100 From: Rafael Forrer rafael.for...@gmail.com Reply-To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org Hello This is a Link from a Faked OpenOffice Download Site, help us to terminate this Site please http://galleries.secure-softwaremanager.com/82449ac2b9/854191c9b511 Thanks Rafael Forrer
Re: Piracy - Fwd: [documentation-dev] look this please
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:23 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: Anybody know who pursues pirates like this? --/tj/ In what sense is this faked? OOo is open source, so redistributing copies of it is permitted. What would be bad is if someone created a modified version of OOo and then confused users by calling it OpenOffice.org. There was an organization that was rebuilding OOo installs and bundling in all sorts of bloatware. The LGPL license allows this, but the use of the OOo trademark would be a problem, Do we know if this site is doing that? Anyone have a Windows machine they can sacrifice to see what this software really is? -Rob Original Message Subject: [documentation-dev] look this please Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:31:43 +0100 From: Rafael Forrer rafael.for...@gmail.com Reply-To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org Hello This is a Link from a Faked OpenOffice Download Site, help us to terminate this Site please http://galleries.secure-softwaremanager.com/82449ac2b9/854191c9b511 Thanks Rafael Forrer
Re: Can we update our migration status table?
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote: If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the current status of the migration effort: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status A few things that seem wrong: 1) Why are we saying no consensus for the extension and template sites? That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we don't yet agree on how to handle these sites. But isn't the truth more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue having this hosted by OSL? Does anyone disagree that this is the plan? (Psst. If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus) I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this. I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate. I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to supp...@osusol.org. The intro to that page says: The following is a high-level summary of the migration of content and services of www.openoffice.org from Oracle-hosted to Apache-hosted infrastructure. Since the extensions and template pages are not hosted by Oracle, there is no need to migrate them to Apache. So an accurate status summary would say that. No consensus or No volunteers have come forward, taken in the context of the page, gives the false impression that these sites are currently at risj of not being migrated off of Oracle servers. I understand that the OSL hosting is not currently stable, and that will only improve if we can find a Drupel expert to help, or find an alternative solution, but that is not a migration issue. -Rob 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those sites are gone and are not coming back? Instead of No decision yet, are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status of Will not migrate? If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki. I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system. Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo? Regards, Dave Thanks! -Rob
Re: [CODE]: spellchecker, hunspell, MacOS
On 11/25/11 6:19 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 05:32:39PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 11/25/11 3:54 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Hi Jürgen, On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 02:47:45PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: Hi, do anybody know if Hunspell is also used and necessary on MacOS? I noticed some build problems after the latest update and did a build without --enable-hunspell. The build breaks in lingucomponent/.../macspellimpl.cxx it was me who removed the dependency on hunspell there. By reading the sources (I don't have a MacOS, and never will) in trunk/main/lingucomponent/source/spellcheck/macosxspell/ that code has no dependency at all in libhunspell. no problem at all The dependency on hunspell was spread all over the components there, sure a bug of copy-and-pasting the makefiles. probably yes So you should be able to build the MacOSXSpell component without hunspell enabled, and spell checking should work with only this component installed. Otherwise, its a bug (I tested the changes both on Linux and WinXP and the three components can be build and installed independently form each other; the same should work in MacOS). that was my understanding as well There was still a dependency to some types defined in Hunspell. I tried to fix that and was able to build... that's quite strange. Do you have the logs? Was it a clean build? yes, and it was simple compiler error, dictentry not defined ... But the whole code looks strange, some places were changed where this type was used before. I have changed the code and removed unused stuff... The dependency on hunspell should now be only limited to trunk/main/lingucomponent/source/spellcheck/spell/ that is the only UNO component that interfaces with libhunspell. All the other code in lingusitic and lingucomponent should work out fo the box without hunspell. after my small changes it built as expected But it seems that spellchecking doesn't work, for spell checking to work you need the dictionaries (I have no idea what kind of dictionaries supports MacOS), but without dictionaries installed the UNO component are not even listed in Tools - Options - Linguistic - Writing Aids i used an English version and at least the English dictionary is installed. In other built office versions the spellchecker worked. and also redlining doesn't work. AFAIK redlining does not depend on spell checking but on dictionaries, i am no expert here and have to take a closer look on it Before i take a closer look in this problem i would like to know if it should work without Hunspell in general. AFAIK it should, just look at the sources, macspellimp.hxx and macspellimp.cxx have no reference to hunpsell (the references I removed - look at the log - where there just because of a copy-and-paste error from the hunspell spell checker; the same is valid for the makefile.mk). yes i have seen it. I assumed that somewhere is something triggered by Hunspell that now doesn't work. I don't know yet. The only thing i see is that it doesn't work. I will keep you informed. see if the attached patch solves your issue. indeed you patch solves the problem and the spellchecker is now working on MacOS as well without --enable-hunspell. I will integrate it with my changes in the code. But there is still some work for MacOS open to handle user dictionaries in a proper way or to clean the code finally. Postponed to later. Juergen
Re: Moving into mentor-idle state
Hi Christian, Enjoy your downtime and thanks for your help. You will be missed. Best Regards, Dave On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:48 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Hello folks, I am currently a bit exhausted and would like to make some kind of a break with ooo. I don't want to leave completely, but I want to take the opportunity not to read so much e-mails :-) and relax a for a while. If you think that I might be of some help, please ping me directly and I will help of course. Would be nice to see a short ACK from one of the mentors and one of the ppmc. Cheers Christian -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: [WWW][Policy] Participate! - Rewriting contributing.openoffice.org
Hello again-- OK, based on this discussion (really meta redirects in the header would be most useful in my opinion), I will NOT be changing the participate link on the now ooo-site home page until the discussion on this is finalized. Or is it for this one aspect? I'm somewhat confused about the approaches here. And yes, we do indeed to redirect the entire contribute.openoffice.org to something just as we'll need to do for ALL the projects sites. On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 27, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Redirects are easy once the live-site is our site and it can be figured out how to add HTML head meta tags that the Apache CMS allows. Also, there is always the good old .htaccess scripting of a redirect (again, working around the CMS I suppose). It should be done on at least on ooo-site even if it has no effect until cut-over. There is no reason to break a link on speculation when it is easy to avoid breaking it, or having the break be temporary until cut-over. (I'd bet the page has been search-indexed and the your download is starting, thank you for downloading pages link to donation/contribution points.) Dennis, I have absolutely no objections to any redirect rules that you are volunteering to implement. I, however, do not think they are worth while, so I will not be spending any time on them. And something else to consider: without actual data your chances of guessing what are the significant incoming links are is practically nil. Since we have not enabled Google Analytics on the site, we continue to lack such data. Some of the external links are to the kind of content we are already throwing out. For example: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html points to http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/sissl_license.html It is entirely irrelevant to our work at Apache, but do we keep it for historical reasons? If we're not willing to enable GA, then our next best bet would be to monitor the httpd logs for 404 errors. A regular report of page not found errors, sorted by URL and indicating the referrer, will give us a targeted list of places were a redirect will help. Otherwise we're not going to have much luck with the **2.6 million** external links that come into openoffice.org pages. The plan is to redirect with wildcards to specific pages. See my other email. I am thinking we will do that type of redirect to most of the legacy openoffice.org site. It might make sense to ask Apache Infra for a third Apache CMS tree called ooo-archive and move all of the legacy that is either hopelessly out of date, currently without a people to support it, or irrelevant to OOo under Apache. I want to be careful about this as a balancing act of displacing users will need to be considered. Each page that is a target of a redirect will need to be carefully edited to allow that most people arriving at that page will feel lost. They won't be getting what they expect and it might not be in their native language. How will you know if you are doing this well or poorly? If, due to a typographical error on a redirect rule, how would you know if you lost 10,000 pages? That's my concern. We're trying to migrate content with 2.6 million external links to it based on eyeballing a list of redirects. That might get you 90% of the way there. But 10% is still a lot of errors. I'm pretty good at doing the eyeballs - I've got four of them with progressive lenses - and I think we will have less than 300 rules. I will put all the redirects on the CWiki page I started. I am sure we will have other eyeballs like Joe's and everyone looking at Infrastructure commits. You've also made some useful suggestions about scanning and testing for broken internal links. This is actually a greater concern to me. IIRC you suggested listing all the hrefs, sorting for duplicates and then testing each. Maybe you can get Infra@ to archive http logs for the week before and the week after the migration? Sure Infra can help us look for 404s from the first week after, but I don't know how the week before would help - the logs are at Oracle and different stuff will be broken. To address your concern we should look specifically at what a 404 error page should look like and how to address this. Go to qa.openoffice.org and you will see trouble with how bugzilla was migrated without the qa project in front of it. Regards, Dave -Rob Regards, Dave -Rob Finally, it is my understanding that cut-over of the static site is now at our option and the AOOo
Business models that will not work [was: Re: Can we update our migration status table?]
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher: snip I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system. Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo? Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration. Anyone is free to take Apache releases and redistribute them. Anyone. That is the nature of open source license. However, there is no exclusivity to this. We can't designate one party, outside of Apache, as the official distributer of builds or to give them special access to our download page that we do not offer fairly to others. So I'm afraid that business models based on things like this are doomed to fail: 1) Selling web ads based on being the exclusive or preferred download site for OpenOffice 2) Having a 3rd party contribute link on a page that is the Apache-promoted exclusive or preferred download site for OpenOffice 3) Having a special build of OpenOffice that has internal ads or links to ads or contribute links, that is given exclusive or preferred placement on Apache owned domains, including download.openoffice.org 4) Using names that infringe on Apache-owned trademarks in order to confuse users and drive traffic to pages with web ads, contribute links, or downloads with embedded ads, sponsored co-installed software (bloatware), etc. In other words, a business model that is based on the name recognition and familiarity of the name OpenOffice rather than the goods or services one actually produces will fail, since the above would either violate Apache policy, the Apache-owned trademarks, or both. Business models that might work, include: 1) Having a derivative of OpenOffice under a different name that distinguishes itself in some way that users value, and by building a unique brand name around these values, get traffic to your website, where you can then sell ads, ask for contributions, etc. 2) Having an independent company that is clearly distinguished from Apache and the AOO, that accepts donations or payment to add features or fix bugs in AOO. Of course, one needs to be sensitive to the fact that you can never guarantee that a given feature will be accepted by other committers. 3) Deployment, migration services, customization, training, extension development for enterprise users of OpenOffice. Perhaps there are other good business models? -Rob
Re: Can we update our migration status table?
On 2011-11-27 9:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:20 PM, TJ Frazier wrote: ...snip... Two quick comments: (1) We're seriously abandoning Registration? I wonder what Marketing (ours and ASF's) thinks about that? Who is Marketing? People like the most excellent Sally, VP of Marketing Publicity for the ASF are primarily here to provide additional services for Apache projects that ask for them - not to direct how Apache projects do their marketing. So any marketing that this PPMC thinks it needs is what to consider, not what someone else says you need. While we must abandon the registration in the Kenai database at Oracle. We need not abandon registration. As far as I can tell there are new constraints. (a) We need volunteers to propose how they are willing to work to replace it with a new registration system. (b) That system must not provide an openoffice.org email forwarder / anonymous email address. (c) It will be a completely new and fresh registration database. (d) Apache Infrastructure needs to be asked to host it, or the PPMC will need to agree about an external location. (e) The volunteers will need to be able to maintain the system. Strange idea. Is it possible to make either MediaWiki or Bugzilla registration double as user registration? Our mentors will no doubt think of a couple more requirements. - If you want it, have a specific and detailed proposal that includes how to maintain the registration database with PPMC volunteers in the future - Do not expose the ASF or this project to any additional legal risks, especially considering privacy laws (for example, in the US or Europe) (2) Both Registration and Crash Reporter have code links, i.e., will require code changes in the product so that users aren't sent to dead ends. Does the project want a Crash Reporter? Possibly again volunteers with a proposal and negotiation with Infrastructure are needed. Regards, Dave Personally I'm -0 on a user registration, but +1 on crash reporting if there's PPMC energy to make it happen. As the only major end-user facing project at Apache, getting better details from crash reports would be very useful. - Shane
RE: Piracy - Fwd: [documentation-dev] look this please
I agree that pirate is the wrong term. The button on the page linked in the complaint downloads a file of only 248kB named OpenOfficeSetup.exe. It is not exactly an OO.o download. It has a digital signature in the name of appbundler.com and it checks as a Verisign Class 3 Code Signing 2010 CA cert. A quick check with Microsoft Security Essentials does not detect the file as malware. It has the usual installer icon. Using Windows XP SP3 in a VM, I ran the program in the Windows XP Run As ... restricted-privilege mode. I was rewarded with the attached message. Since the digital signature checks OK on the file, the message itself is suspect. A quick web search on appbundler.com reveals an extensive reputation for distributing adware. Using Jotti's malware scan, http://virusscan.jotti.org/en, there were 12 out of 20 detections of malware. The indications were for Adware.Screensave.e ADWARE/Adware.Gen Gen:Variant.Adware.Hotbar.2 and Adware screensavers with various detection names. Not sure how reliable any of that is. - Dennis - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 04:32 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Piracy - Fwd: [documentation-dev] look this please On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:23 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: Anybody know who pursues pirates like this? --/tj/ In what sense is this faked? OOo is open source, so redistributing copies of it is permitted. What would be bad is if someone created a modified version of OOo and then confused users by calling it OpenOffice.org. There was an organization that was rebuilding OOo installs and bundling in all sorts of bloatware. The LGPL license allows this, but the use of the OOo trademark would be a problem, Do we know if this site is doing that? Anyone have a Windows machine they can sacrifice to see what this software really is? -Rob Original Message Subject:[documentation-dev] look this please Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:31:43 +0100 From: Rafael Forrer rafael.for...@gmail.com Reply-To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org Hello This is a Link from a Faked OpenOffice Download Site, help us to terminate this Site please http://galleries.secure-softwaremanager.com/82449ac2b9/854191c9b511 Thanks Rafael Forrer attachment: OpenOfficeSetup-2011-11-28-0835-EXE-Fail.png smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Can we update our migration status table?
On Nov 28, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher: On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote: If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the current status of the migration effort: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status A few things that seem wrong: 1) Why are we saying no consensus for the extension and template sites? That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we don't yet agree on how to handle these sites. But isn't the truth more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue having this hosted by OSL? Does anyone disagree that this is the plan? (Psst. If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus) I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this. I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate. I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to supp...@osusol.org. 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those sites are gone and are not coming back? Instead of No decision yet, are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status of Will not migrate? If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki. I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system. Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo? Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration. You have misunderstood me. I am only considering distributions of the legacy OOo releases that are LGPL that we cannot put on Apache Infrastructure like the maintenance release that is being proposed by TOOo. For all releases of AOO under the AL2.0 we will without any doubt be using the Apache mirror system. No way we can delegate our releases. Regards, Dave Marcus
Re: Can we update our migration status table?
Am 11/28/2011 06:25 PM, schrieb Dave Fisher: On Nov 28, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote: Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher: On Nov 27, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Rob Weir wrote: If you recall, this is the site that we are pointing users to for the current status of the migration effort: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/OpenOffice.org+Migration+Status A few things that seem wrong: 1) Why are we saying no consensus for the extension and template sites? That makes it sound like we're having a discussion and we don't yet agree on how to handle these sites. But isn't the truth more like we all agree to do nothing for the short term, but continue having this hosted by OSL? Does anyone disagree that this is the plan? (Psst. If no one disagrees with that, then we have consensus) I modified the status to that no one has come through to volunteer to improve this. I guess you have a plan. Should you elaborate. I'll note that despite letting people know numerous times, I have been the only person who has reported otages to supp...@osusol.org. 2) EIS, TCM, QUASTe, QATrack, Registration, Product improvement and Crash Reporter --- does anyone disagree that the plan is that those sites are gone and are not coming back? Instead of No decision yet, are there any objections to me changing these to give a final status of Will not migrate? If there are any other updates, please edit the wiki. I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system. Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo? Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration. You have misunderstood me. I am only considering distributions of the legacy OOo releases that are LGPL that we cannot put on Apache Infrastructure like the maintenance release that is being proposed by TOOo. OK, wasn't clear for me. Marcus
Re: Business models that will not work [was: Re: Can we update our migration status table?]
Am 11/28/2011 06:11 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Marcus (OOo)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 11/28/2011 05:48 AM, schrieb Dave Fisher: snip I changed the MirrorBrain row to make it clear that this issue only effects the legacy OOo downloads. All AOO releases will be on the Apache Mirror system. Perhaps download.services.openoffice.org is one way that AOO can team up with TOOo? Maybe not a bad idea. AOO will take care of the code and produces the source release (and maybe also some binary releases) and hosting of install files can be done by TOO. Could be a good thing of collaboration. So I'm afraid that business models based on things like this are doomed to fail: [Deleted that stuff as I wasn't talking about businesses] Business models that might work, include: 1) Having a derivative of OpenOffice under a different name that distinguishes itself in some way that users value, and by building a unique brand name around these values, get traffic to your website, where you can then sell ads, ask for contributions, etc. As there will be no future release of OOo (when we skip the *maybe* 3.3.1 release) this is no option. Of course it has to be a different name. 2) Having an independent company that is clearly distinguished from Apache and the AOO, that accepts donations or payment to add features or fix bugs in AOO. Of course, one needs to be sensitive to the fact that you can never guarantee that a given feature will be accepted by other committers. ... except when doing it themselves. ;-) When there is an already settled committer then you can do the commits yourself. I hope that new (well-planned and well-structured) features will be welcome. 3) Deployment, migration services, customization, training, extension development for enterprise users of OpenOffice. Yes, the typical options around open source software because with the application itself you cannot make single a penny. Perhaps there are other good business models? Marcus
What about BrOffice?
Hi guys; I am not meaning to alienate the Brazilian community or anything like that. Just wondering if there are thoughts on BrOffice brand and releases. AFAICT, BrOffice is not a trademark SUN owned so it was not transferred to the ASF. I think the BrOffice people will have to make a proposal to the PPMC but just some points to wonder about: - Are we (AOO) allowed to carry BrOffice branding stuff in our repository at all? - Can anyone release a BrOffice branded product? - How will it be differentiated by the BrOffice derived from LibreOffice (therefore under a different license)? - Could/should it be called Apache BrOffice? (would surely require permission from ASF if that's the case). Just thinking that such things should be planned beforehand ;). cheers, Pedro.
Re: Business models that will not work [was: Re: Can we update our migration status table?]
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Perhaps there are other good business models? The last stick version of Ubuntu I grabbed included LO already installed. So...bundle feature? Don
Re: What about BrOffice?
On 28 Nov 2011, at 18:24, Pedro Giffuni wrote: I am not meaning to alienate the Brazilian community or anything like that. Just wondering if there are thoughts on BrOffice brand and releases. I believe the BrOffice community joined the Document Foundation some time ago and is now fully merged; certainly http://broffice.org points clearly at LibreOffice. S.
Re: What about BrOffice?
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi guys; I am not meaning to alienate the Brazilian community or anything like that. Just wondering if there are thoughts on BrOffice brand and releases. AFAICT, BrOffice is not a trademark SUN owned so it was not transferred to the ASF. I think the BrOffice people will have to make a proposal to the PPMC but just some points to wonder about: IMHO, the name BrOffice is different enough from OpenOffice that there is not a problem here from the AOO perspective. But if someone else owns the trademark for BrOffice then that might be a different problem. - Are we (AOO) allowed to carry BrOffice branding stuff in our repository at all? Why would we want to do that? - Can anyone release a BrOffice branded product? This depends on whether someone else claims a trademark on BrOffice. - How will it be differentiated by the BrOffice derived from LibreOffice (therefore under a different license)? - Could/should it be called Apache BrOffice? (would surely require permission from ASF if that's the case). Apache BrOffice would be a problem unless BrOffice was the name of an actual Apache project. Just thinking that such things should be planned beforehand ;). Is there a problem with just having a Brazilian Portuguese release of Apache OpenOffice using the name Apache OpenOffice? That would be the simplest thing to do. -Rob cheers, Pedro.
Re: Business models that will not work [was: Re: Can we update our migration status table?]
On 28 November 2011 18:24, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Perhaps there are other good business models? The last stick version of Ubuntu I grabbed included LO already installed. So...bundle feature? I think I have a business model that works but more for Foss in general than specifically AOO. We have been in business a few years using it and although hard work we are making steady progress. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Piracy - Fwd: [documentation-dev] look this please
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I agree that pirate is the wrong term. The button on the page linked in the complaint downloads a file of only 248kB named OpenOfficeSetup.exe. It is not exactly an OO.o download. It has a digital signature in the name of appbundler.com and it checks as a Verisign Class 3 Code Signing 2010 CA cert. A quick check with Microsoft Security Essentials does not detect the file as malware. It has the usual installer icon. Using Windows XP SP3 in a VM, I ran the program in the Windows XP Run As ... restricted-privilege mode. I was rewarded with the attached message. Since the digital signature checks OK on the file, the message itself is suspect. A quick web search on appbundler.com reveals an extensive reputation for distributing adware. Using Jotti's malware scan, http://virusscan.jotti.org/en, there were 12 out of 20 detections of malware. The indications were for Adware.Screensave.e ADWARE/Adware.Gen Gen:Variant.Adware.Hotbar.2 Cool. Thanks for giving that a try. This does not look like the proper use of the trademarks, any more than adding sand to a Hershey bar and then giving it away to unsuspecting children while calling it a Hershey bar would be acceptable. I recall seeing the same download site linked to and Adware screensavers with various detection names. Not sure how reliable any of that is. - Dennis - Dennis -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 04:32 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Piracy - Fwd: [documentation-dev] look this please On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:23 AM, TJ Frazier tjfraz...@cfl.rr.com wrote: Anybody know who pursues pirates like this? --/tj/ In what sense is this faked? OOo is open source, so redistributing copies of it is permitted. What would be bad is if someone created a modified version of OOo and then confused users by calling it OpenOffice.org. There was an organization that was rebuilding OOo installs and bundling in all sorts of bloatware. The LGPL license allows this, but the use of the OOo trademark would be a problem, Do we know if this site is doing that? Anyone have a Windows machine they can sacrifice to see what this software really is? -Rob Original Message Subject: [documentation-dev] look this please Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:31:43 +0100 From: Rafael Forrer rafael.for...@gmail.com Reply-To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org To: d...@documentation.openoffice.org Hello This is a Link from a Faked OpenOffice Download Site, help us to terminate this Site please http://galleries.secure-softwaremanager.com/82449ac2b9/854191c9b511 Thanks Rafael Forrer
Re: Business models that will not work [was: Re: Can we update our migration status table?]
Hi, Le 28 nov. 11 à 19:24, Donald Whytock a écrit : On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Perhaps there are other good business models? The last stick version of Ubuntu I grabbed included LO already installed. So...bundle feature? On your Ubuntu, what returns : apt-get install openoffice.org ?? Thanks Eric Bachard -- qɔᴉɹə Projet OOo4Kids : http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/Main_Page L'association EducOOo : http://www.educoo.org Blog : http://eric.bachard.org/news
Re: What about BrOffice?
On 2011/10/28 16:43 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: Is there a problem with just having a Brazilian Portuguese release of Apache OpenOffice using the name Apache OpenOffice? That would be the simplest thing to do. This is basically what I believe we should do. As Simon showed, BrOffice joined the TDF. We had to use BrOffice as the product name because OpenOffice was a registered trademark in Brazil, and AFAIK Apache OpenOffice will not have problems here. Best, Jomar
Re: What about BrOffice?
--- Lun 28/11/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto: .. - Are we (AOO) allowed to carry BrOffice branding stuff in our repository at all? Why would we want to do that? I don't know.. you brought it in ;) : http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/inc_broffice/ I do think we want to be Apache OpenOffice in Brazil too, despite the fact OpenOffice.org was relatively unknown there. I just wanted to be sure I can dispose of the old BrOffice logos and stuff. Is there a problem with just having a Brazilian Portuguese release of Apache OpenOffice using the name Apache OpenOffice? That would be the simplest thing to do. We will lose many users but I think they are already lost anyways. Pedro.
Res: Re: What about BrOffice?
Pedro, The history told in Brazil for many users is: BrOffice changed its name to LibreOffice. So, the damage is already done and we'll need to start almost from the scratch with Apache OpenOffice. If we insist to use the old BrOffice brand, probably we'll just put more noise on the market. Best, Jomar -Original Message- From: Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 10:59:25 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What about BrOffice? --- Lun 28/11/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto: .. - Are we (AOO) allowed to carry BrOffice branding stuff in our repository at all? Why would we want to do that? I don't know.. you brought it in ;) : http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/inc_broffice/ I do think we want to be Apache OpenOffice in Brazil too, despite the fact OpenOffice.org was relatively unknown there. I just wanted to be sure I can dispose of the old BrOffice logos and stuff. Is there a problem with just having a Brazilian Portuguese release of Apache OpenOffice using the name Apache OpenOffice? That would be the simplest thing to do. We will lose many users but I think they are already lost anyways. Pedro.
Re: What about BrOffice?
Am 11/28/2011 07:43 PM, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Pedro Giffunip...@apache.org wrote: Hi guys; I am not meaning to alienate the Brazilian community or anything like that. Just wondering if there are thoughts on BrOffice brand and releases. AFAICT, BrOffice is not a trademark SUN owned so it was not transferred to the ASF. I think the BrOffice people will have to make a proposal to the PPMC but just some points to wonder about: IMHO, the name BrOffice is different enough from OpenOffice that there is not a problem here from the AOO perspective. But if someone else owns the trademark for BrOffice then that might be a different problem. - Are we (AOO) allowed to carry BrOffice branding stuff in our repository at all? Why would we want to do that? FYI: In the past Sun/Oracle has done special builds for the Brazilian community as the usual name was occupied. However, in the last builds we have canceled to build BrOffice install files and have done normal OOo builds also for the pt-BR local, too (see download.openoffice.org/other.html and download.openoffice.org/all_beta.html for reference). However, I don't know if branding stuff (graphics, icons, etc.) is in the code at all but some brand names and similar things should be still there. So, this should be deleted now. Is there a problem with just having a Brazilian Portuguese release of Apache OpenOffice using the name Apache OpenOffice? That would be the simplest thing to do. Yes, Apache OpenOffice should be different enough. At Sun/Oracle we had already the problem of difference names (StarOffice and StarSuite) for difference markets. Let's try this time to stick with a single name. :-) Marcus
Re: What about BrOffice?
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Nov 28, 2011 6:43 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi guys; ... AFAICT, BrOffice is not a trademark SUN owned so it was not transferred to the ASF. I think the BrOffice people will have to make a proposal to the PPMC but just some points to wonder about: IMHO, the name BrOffice is different enough from OpenOffice that there is not a problem here from the AOO perspective. +1 Ross
Re: What about BrOffice?
Hi, Not quite the whole story, but ultimately does not matter. So I agree with guys who think that here in Brazil the product has the name Apache OpenOffice. Rgds, Luiz Oliveira 2011/11/28 Ross Gardler rgard...@opendirective.com Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. On Nov 28, 2011 6:43 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: Hi guys; ... AFAICT, BrOffice is not a trademark SUN owned so it was not transferred to the ASF. I think the BrOffice people will have to make a proposal to the PPMC but just some points to wonder about: IMHO, the name BrOffice is different enough from OpenOffice that there is not a problem here from the AOO perspective. +1 Ross
Ohloh
FYI. I've contacted an Ohloh admin to see if we can get the stats updated correctly again. -Rob
Re: What about BrOffice?
On Nov 28, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: --- Lun 28/11/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org ha scritto: .. - Are we (AOO) allowed to carry BrOffice branding stuff in our repository at all? Why would we want to do that? I don't know.. you brought it in ;) : http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/ooo/trunk/main/instsetoo_native/inc_broffice/ I do think we want to be Apache OpenOffice in Brazil too, despite the fact OpenOffice.org was relatively unknown there. I just wanted to be sure I can dispose of the old BrOffice logos and stuff. The openoffice.org N-L site for PT-BR is a simple link to broffice.org - this must change. See - http://ooo-site.apache.org/pt-br/ and http://br-pt.openoffice.org/ If we had a PT-BR translation of the current www.openoffice.org buttons and news that would help. Is there a problem with just having a Brazilian Portuguese release of Apache OpenOffice using the name Apache OpenOffice? That would be the simplest thing to do. We will lose many users but I think they are already lost anyways. As you see the OOo site lost the users for us. Regards, Dave Pedro.
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi Rob, Thanks. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: If you are looking for permission to use the trademarks, then you should follow the instructions here: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html The PPMC approves first, and then sends to Trademarks@ OK. I will follow those steps. Thanks, khirano
Re: Moving into mentor-idle state
Danke vielmals... and see you soon ;-) ## Manfred - (android) mobil - please excuse typos and brevity. Am 28.11.2011 10:48 schrieb Christian Grobmeier grobme...@gmail.com: Hello folks, I am currently a bit exhausted and would like to make some kind of a break with ooo. I don't want to leave completely, but I want to take the opportunity not to read so much e-mails :-) and relax a for a while. If you think that I might be of some help, please ping me directly and I will help of course. Would be nice to see a short ACK from one of the mentors and one of the ppmc. Cheers Christian -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
Re: What about BrOffice?
Jomar Silva wrote: We had to use BrOffice as the product name because OpenOffice was a registered trademark in Brazil, and AFAIK Apache OpenOffice will not have problems here. If I recall correctly, the issue about OpenOffice being a registered trademark (by some entity different than OpenOffice.org/Oracle) in Brazil had been solved in recent times, but the Brazilian community had preferred to keep the BrOffice name since it was a stronger brand (even though, apparently, they did get rid of the BrOffice name later). So Apache OpenOffice should not be problematic, since even the mere OpenOffice should be OK for Brazil now (provided I recall correctly some discussions from last year). Regards, Andrea.
Re: Moving ext_src to Apache
Am 30.10.2011 19:49, schrieb Mathias Bauer: Moin, thinking a bit about what would be the best to do I would like to sort all tarballs into several categories: (1) external source tarballs with an AL compatible license (2) external source tarballs with weak copyleft license (3) external source tarballs with strong copleft license I decided to make things simple. So I just checked in the source tarballs for (1) and (2), means sources with category A and B license. You will find them in the new folder trunk/ext_sources Basically we should be able to use this folder in the build once we have solved the remaining problems (see below). By luck this is the default location where the OOo build looks for external tarballs if no parameter was set in configure. So I made an attempt to build with it (Ubuntu 11.10 64 Bit) and nearly got through the build: (1) ./configure (no parameters!) (2) *no* bootstrap (I took dmake from the system and skipped the fetch_tarballs that way) (3) build I got problems only in three cases: (1) berkeley DB was missed in two places (2) rhino missed swingExtSrc (this was discussed on the list already, maybe we have a solution to fix that?) (3) I then provided the missing tarballs temporarily and continued with the build. Now I got a problem in instsetoo_native (building of deb files didn't work, perhaps the system epm doesn't work here, I heard that others were more successfull). But the archive install set was build and worked! That looks as if we are close to a build without external stuff with strong copyleft license. We still have to define how to deal with the weak copyleft stuff. I found the following Category B licenses: MPL, CPL, CDDL. As we still didn't get a definitive statement if we are allowed to keep them in svn if we make sure that they are not built by default and they are not part of our source releases, it seems that there is a common agreement to keep them for now and possibly remove them later. Even if we had to remove them, we now have an intermediate step that helps us a bit forward, IMHO. At this time my checkin does not change anything for the build, but you can try it by providing a dmake instance before and not calling bootstrap as described above. Now we can start from there and change our build so that it uses this folder by default. Regards, Mathias
Re: What about BrOffice?
Am 11/28/2011 11:54 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Jomar Silva wrote: We had to use BrOffice as the product name because OpenOffice was a registered trademark in Brazil, and AFAIK Apache OpenOffice will not have problems here. If I recall correctly, the issue about OpenOffice being a registered trademark (by some entity different than OpenOffice.org/Oracle) in Brazil had been solved in recent times, but the Brazilian community had preferred to keep the BrOffice name since it was a stronger brand (even though, apparently, they did get rid of the BrOffice name later). So Apache OpenOffice should not be problematic, since even the mere OpenOffice should be OK for Brazil now (provided I recall correctly some discussions from last year). Yes, your recall is right. I just wasn't that detailed in my previous mail. Marcus
Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Arthur Buijs art...@artietee.nl wrote: On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Kay, I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing a re-checkout. On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all accepted and incubator projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree. So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we will ahve copies. Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take advantage of this. Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree. however, I know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now. If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I am correct for now without double checking. I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less impact to the ASF infrastructure. So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can get the legacy accepted projects in the ooo-site tree for further evaluation by SUnday. Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects. Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I missing any other active N-L projects?) then I am for removing all N-L now. I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final push. I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our current N-L site is outdated. WONDERFUL! Please let us know when you get this done and we'll get it posted! -- Arthur Buijs -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: [GENERAL] status of legacy OOo site migration to ooo-site.apache.org
another short update on all this. It seems if I keep commit size down to less than say 350M, things MOSTLY go OK unless I'm caught in the backup cycle -- at which point my commit goes on forever and my terminal session gets dropped. Oh well, at least svn seems to be able to complete. Still yesterday, I double checked the commit and did a cleanup to solve lock problems I'd inadvertently caused before. OK, I have the following areas left to fix (tomorrow): marketing (this is BIG area), ux, and xml. Again, I will NOT be uploading the old website/infrastructure area. I don't think there's anything there we can use in our current operations. On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: ok--I'll see what I can find out On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Folks-- I have been doing some cleanup/fixing of the OOo legacy site as we're transporting to ooo-site.apache.org. The legacy site is QUITE large, and because of the more or less single trunk we have now, much of what I'm doing will no doubt affect your local repository sizes. So, if you do an update soon, you will definitely notice this. Nearly all of the legacy projects sites were incomplete with only one level of information whereas most contain many sub-directories -- this is what I'm trying to fix. Monday and Tues, the following areas were fixed with the following sizes by directory: qa: 679M api: 196M documentation: 2.3G dba: 37M bibliographic: 48M Hopefully by this coming Sunday, barring an unforeseen issues, I will also fix (update) the following areas: external: 1.6M framework: 27M graphics: 3.3M gsl: 5.2M ui: 571M marketing: 1.6G xml: 41M ux: 170M tools: 359M udk: 69M ucb: 864K installation: 975M lingucomponent: 11M porting: 19M sc: 80M sw: 170K You'll want to check with Infra@ for how much the SVN sync can take at once. My guess is these large chunks (975M, etc.) will need to be broken up into smaller commits. I might suggest that if you are on a system that allows it, that you setup svn ignores for whatever areas you're not interested in and see if this prevents loading to your local repository. Other than that, i don't have any suggestions. I know this is quite different than the very containized repositories we've had in the past, so it might come as a bit of a shock. Currently, although we have back-ups of the old incubator areas, I'm not sure what we'll bedoing with them. -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi -- MzK The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. -- Mohandas Gandhi
Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
Am 11/28/2011 09:33 AM, schrieb Arthur Buijs: On 11/24/2011 01:05 AM, Dave Fisher wrote: Hi Kay, I have some concerns that the buildbot broke recently. Also, somehow my checkout of ooo-site was busted with a lock. I am currently doing a re-checkout. On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:12 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: OK, I understand. As a point of clarification. I have a complete set vis a vis openoffice.svn sites of all accepted and incubator projects which I am now cleaning up and importing into the ooo-site svn tree. So, no matter what we decided ultimately about the ooo-site tree, we we will ahve copies. Excellent, having all the projects there is excellent. Let's take advantage of this. Given the large size of some of these areas, I was just concerned about the import of some of them *at all* into the ooo-site svn tree. however, I know they really do need to be someplace where all the project committers (and contributors) can access them in order to be of any use right now. If you set the group ownership correctly all other committers should be able to access your account in people.apache.org. Let's assume I am correct for now without double checking. I was planning to check in every N-L site, tag each and then delete the N-L from ooo-site. If your archive is available to all committers then this is a better archive location than svn. Fewer steps and less impact to the ASF infrastructure. So, I will get back to the import process on Friday, and hopefully, can get the legacy accepted projects in the ooo-site tree for further evaluation by SUnday. Yes and I would avoid doing anymore N-L projects. Since Khirano is willing to do a translation of the new main site. If Pedro and the other Italians and MArcus and the other Germans. Plus Alexandro and the Spanish are in Consensus to do translations of the new main (Am I missing any other active N-L projects?) then I am for removing all N-L now. I am back over the weekend and we can start focusing on the final push. I am willing to do a translation of the new main site to Dutch. Our current N-L site is outdated. As there was no other offer, I'll volunteer for the German website parts. Marcus
Re: What about BrOffice?
OK; I have a patch that removes every occurrence of BrOffice, and the logos. It actually makes branding simpler but I don't know if my patch affects the packaging. I found a reversely related bug in bugzilla so I put up the patch for testing at: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=113843 cheers, Pedro.
Re: Business models that will not work [was: Re: Can we update our migration status table?]
FWIW; I think a central site for hosting AOO extensions would be welcome. It would be fine to have such a site sponsored by donations and web publicity, and offering a share of technical support and commercial extensions would be fine too. Pedro. --- On Mon, 11/28/11, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: ... Business models that might work, include: 1) Having a derivative of OpenOffice under a different name that distinguishes itself in some way that users value, and by building a unique brand name around these values, get traffic to your website, where you can then sell ads, ask for contributions, etc. 2) Having an independent company that is clearly distinguished from Apache and the AOO, that accepts donations or payment to add features or fix bugs in AOO. Of course, one needs to be sensitive to the fact that you can never guarantee that a given feature will be accepted by other committers. 3) Deployment, migration services, customization, training, extension development for enterprise users of OpenOffice. Perhaps there are other good business models? -Rob
