date:20120614

On 6/14/12 10:19 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> 
> 
> --- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo)  ha scritto:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>
>>> And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A
>>> as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an
>>> enhanced A. You won't probably
>>> remove features from A but take only some of B.
>>>
>>> So the decision between Method I and II is also the
>>> decision to work for an enhanced OOo/AOO or for an
>>> enhanced Symphony.
>>
> 
> I might have missed something but the idea behind both
> options is to arrive to the same product, that means
> reusing as much available code as possible.

more or less, I doubt that we will achieve 100% in both directions.

> 
> 
>> Also a clear +1 from me to go the way of option I.
>>
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to could put the options
> in some time metric.
> 
> My guess (and it's only a guess, not an estimate)
> ...
> 
> Option I : 2 years.
> Option II: 8 months.
> 

we should be careful with spreading numbers based on wild guessing. It
requires some deeper analysis.

> Personally, I think I will work on both options
> at the same time: I do want to have an early
> Symphony BSD port. No objections if I start
> merging patches into Symphony once uploaded? :).

you are free in the work you are doing but I think it would be wrong. We
should find an agreement on the direction we want to move forward. Our
goal is to take the best of both and build the best free office suite
ever. We shouldn't split further resources by working on 2 code bases.
It will be the completely wrong signal.
I am of course against releasing 2 source releases based on 2 different
source trees.

I am surprised about such an idea

Juergen

Re: Should we start posting regular dev snapshot builds for 3.4.1 or 3.5?

On 6/14/12 11:33 PM, Andrew Rist wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/14/2012 8:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 6/14/12 5:04 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:53:51AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
 I've seeing a lot of bug fixes coming in.  This is great!

 But none of us are perfect.  Sometimes bug fixes don't work or fixing
 one bug causes another problem.That is why we test.   And it is
 best to test a bug fix before too much time has elapsed.

 Would it make sense to agree on a date to post an updated dev
 snapshot, so we can verify the bug fixes and ensure that no new
 instability has been introduced?  Maybe get into the practice of doing
 this regularly, e.g., every 1 or 2 weeks or something.
>>> IMO first we should decide if building 3.4.1 alphas/betas or 3.5
>>> Developer
>>> Snapshots; yes, the naming is a mess, we should clear this up, also
>>> clear the page
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
>>>
>>> IIRC in OOo times, Developer Snapshots where builds from the main code
>>> line, for example http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/
>>> Betas where from the release code line, for example
>>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/
>>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/
>>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO320/
>>>
>>> I guess we could build both, at different intervals, a 3.5 Dev.Snap. per
>>> month and a 3.4.1 beta every week or two, for example.
>>>
>> When you see my proposed schedule for 3.4.1 I have proposed to start dev
>> builds for 3.4.1 with the beginning of June. We are working on setting
>> up some local machines that allow us to automate this a little bit. I
>> hope we can start at least next week with this.
>>
>> And I agree to Ariel that it make sense to start with dev builds for 3.5
>> (trunk) as well. And ideally we can use the binaries from the build bots
>> directly. As I learned today we changed the configure flags already and
>> we should check if we can these builds directly. Or if not we should
>> check what we need to fix to make them usable. That would of course make
>> things easier.
> I think the builds from the buildbot could be directly used.  I think
> there are a couple of things that would need to be changed:
>  - create separate builds for 3.4.1 and trunk
>  - create weekly 'dev builds' that will be a bit different than the
> nightlies, with extra steps required and correct configure options.
>  - create specific build for weekly rat + coverity + ??? for code
> analysis that does not need to be run daily (or nightly)
> 
I agree that makes absolutely sense.

What do you think how much effort is it to adapt the existing scripts to
support this? I have still no knowledge about the build bots, their
setup... I should learn more about it ;-)

We have to check how such a setup will work when we know more details
about the code signing for our Windows binaries. That won't be easy from
a security perspective...

Do you know which compiler we use on the builds bots, do we use the
professional version? We should ensure to enable ATL and ActiveX on the
build bots as well.

Juergen

> A.
> 
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>

R: Introduction of myself

2012-06-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni

Welcome!!

--- Gio 14/6/12, Fan Zheng  ha scritto:

> Hi, Everybody:
> 
> This is Zheng Fan speaking.
> 
> Well, I am a brand new face in AOO community, with
> subscribing the ooo-dev
> mailing list just 2 weeks ago.
> I start working in IBM Symhony project in 2003 and being
> focus in Word
> Processor corresponding area since
> 2006, Before that, I was worked in the Presentation team for
> about 3 years.
> 
> Now, my mainly responsibility is on the issues and features
> in the core
> function of Word Processor,
> including data model, formatting and user behavior
> management. Also, I have
> a little bit experience on the
> MS Word 2003 binary format interoperability and Mac OS
> native
> printing field.
> 
> Hope that my contribution could make AOO being more strong
> and fancy, and
> help you people on issues and
> requirements.
> 
> I would be very happen on communicating with all of you, on
> the issues,
> suggestions, what ever.
> 
> That is all.
> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> yours Zheng Fan
> 2012-06-15
>

Re: Introduction of myself

On 6/15/12 5:06 AM, Fan Zheng wrote:
> Hi, Everybody:
> 
> This is Zheng Fan speaking.
> 
> Well, I am a brand new face in AOO community, with subscribing the ooo-dev
> mailing list just 2 weeks ago.
> I start working in IBM Symhony project in 2003 and being focus in Word
> Processor corresponding area since
> 2006, Before that, I was worked in the Presentation team for about 3 years.
> 
> Now, my mainly responsibility is on the issues and features in the core
> function of Word Processor,
> including data model, formatting and user behavior management. Also, I have
> a little bit experience on the
> MS Word 2003 binary format interoperability and Mac OS native
> printing field.
> 
> Hope that my contribution could make AOO being more strong and fancy, and
> help you people on issues and
> requirements.
> 
> I would be very happen on communicating with all of you, on the issues,
> suggestions, what ever.
> 
> That is all.

welcome on board and thanks for your detailed introduction. I am sure
your experience and knowledge with the code will help to bring AOO
forward and make it better and better.

Have fun here

Juergen


> 
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> yours Zheng Fan
> 2012-06-15
>

[Call for review]Bug 119994 - [From Symphony]Cannot modify the second document even if close range picker in first document

2012-06-14 Thread pengyunquan

Hi, all

I have a fix for bug
119994

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119994

Can anyone help me to review the fix?

Root Cause : On creation of SD, the Range picker dialog of the SC
document is hidden, and it is in nonmodal state. When the new dialog
for creation of SD is popped up, in its call of
Dialog::SetModalInputMode, it changes its previous execute dialog( the
Range picker dialog for SC ) to modal state without check whether the
excuting dialog is in modal state. In the case of this bug, the Range
picker dialog should not be changed to modal state becaused its range
picker is running, and its user event should be handled by the SC
document. If the Range picker dialog is incorrectly changed to modal
state, it handle the user event and it is hidden, so the document can
not respond to the user's mouse click on document, and the document is
lock.

Solution : In Dialog::SetModalInputMode, if prev-execute dialog is
not in modal state, skip prev-execute dialog, and check the
prev-prev-dialog, untill find a modal dialog.



Thanks,

Introduction of myself

2012-06-14 Thread Fan Zheng

Hi, Everybody:

This is Zheng Fan speaking.

Well, I am a brand new face in AOO community, with subscribing the ooo-dev
mailing list just 2 weeks ago.
I start working in IBM Symhony project in 2003 and being focus in Word
Processor corresponding area since
2006, Before that, I was worked in the Presentation team for about 3 years.

Now, my mainly responsibility is on the issues and features in the core
function of Word Processor,
including data model, formatting and user behavior management. Also, I have
a little bit experience on the
MS Word 2003 binary format interoperability and Mac OS native
printing field.

Hope that my contribution could make AOO being more strong and fancy, and
help you people on issues and
requirements.

I would be very happen on communicating with all of you, on the issues,
suggestions, what ever.

That is all.

Thanks a lot!

yours Zheng Fan
2012-06-15

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

2012-06-14 Thread Nancy K

Hi,
I wanted to address the concern on this thread about making it easier for the 
user to also locate images.  What would you think about a central page listing 
the links for all images?  I was thinking that it should be someplace easy for 
the user to find, not buried too deeply - such as the Download page under the 
Resource secondary heading.  This might be the quickest way for a user to find 
images, possibly with a descriptive link such as, 'Images you can use'. Another 
place might be the Support tab - leading from all of the options on the 
openoffice.org page however, just about everyone ends up on the download page.

My first thoughts were about having several folders, and subfolders that could 
move forward with the project.  Placing the actual images and informational 
pages, such as this rough beginning:

Images>Guidelines
>When to seek approval
>FAQ
>Logos
>Current - i.e. official current version logo images with alt keywords for 
>usability/SEO in link -with guidelines if different or referral to applicable 
>guidelines in the Guideline folder

>Future Contests
>Rules(size,format,descriptive file name, etc)
>AOO 3.4 entries
>Archive 
>Icons
>Current
>Future Contests
 >Archive section or folders for each year's contest

>Presentations
>Manuals
>Impress/Video presentations that anyone can use (or add terms of use either on 
>a page or separate folder)
>Contest>any breakdown method such as by year or version release
>Miscellaneous
>Photo
>Vector Art
Once a contest is complete, the winning image/s move to the CURRENT folder, and 
the old replaced images move to the Archives.

On the other hand I think even a list of links on one collective page with the 
same categories as headings and subheadings would work just as well. The link 
to this page could be on the Download page, under Marketing, a wiki, or 
anywhere else that one might want to link a reference to the images available - 
and nothing would necessarily have to move to a new URL location.  If it is a 
page of links, the current images could stay wherever you wanted them, just 
update this one page should the images move to a new URL.

Thoughts?
Nancy

     Nancy      Web Design   
Free 24 hour pass to lynda.com.
Video courses on SEO, CMS,
Design and Software Courses

 From: Rob Weir 
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Kevin Grignon
 wrote:
> KG01 - See comments inline.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
>> remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspect

Re: [WEBSITE] - help needed to update outdated web content

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

>
>
> On 06/13/2012 07:48 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote:
>
>> KG02 - See comments inline.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Kevin Grignon
>> **wrote:
>>
>>  KG01 - See comments inline.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Kay Schenk
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Kevin--


 On 06/11/2012 10:55 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote:

  Hello All,
>
> I need some help.
>
> Currently the UX page on http://www.openoffice.org/ux/ is outdated.
>
> Please remove all content from this page and insert a link to the new
> AOO
> UX homepage:
> http://wiki.services.**openoff**ice.org/wiki/Apache_**
> OpenOffice_User_Experience org/wiki/Apache_OpenOffice_**User_Experience
> >
>
>
 I can do this for you...but are you sure we should remove the references
 to the Specification Project and Accessibility Project also?

 I can probably get to this tomorrow.

 KG01 - Thanks for your support. As a starting point, I'd like to propose
 we consolidate all content in a single trusted source - the new AOO UX
 page. We can provide links to Spec Project and Access Projects from this
 new AOO UX page, assuming this efforts are active. I'll capture an
 action
 item to ensure that I move over all the relevant, active links.



  KG02 - Ok, page contents captured. I will review and create links in
>>> new
>>>
>> AOO UX page. Feel free to proceed with clean up. Thanks again for your
>> help. Clean slate :)
>>
>
OK, this is done...take a look.

I left the graphic, though.


>
>>
> OK -- I can get to this later today...I will just remove all content, and
> link to the new UX wiki site as you requested,
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>  Once we get settled, we can spend some time to create a better UX page
> for
> www.openoffice.org. However, it is very low priority right now.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
>
>  --
 --**--**
 
 MzK

 "There's no crying in baseball!"
   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"


>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> --**--**
> 
>
> MzK
>
> "There's no crying in baseball!"
>   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>



-- 

MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes




On 06/14/2012 01:53 PM, drew wrote:

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew  wrote:

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:










I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..

http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png

(bottom of back cover :)

so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
as a whole.

I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
(and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.

What do you think?



The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
what Hirano-san did a while back.You are asking permission to use
the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
not be transferred to the 3rd parties.

Expressed another way:

Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:

1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
elements that you have reused.

2) Your rights to your original creation.

3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.


#1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.

#2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
You determine the license you want.

#3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that before.

But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?

#1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
the "Get it here!" logo.

Hopefully this makes sense.

-Rob




Well given this response...more questions

Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that
contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though
these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing
perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked)
that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission
because of the logo inclusion?

This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.




Howdy Kay, Rob


Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.

Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.



OK.  I didn't notice the significance of the ND.  That might work.
But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the
artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc.



Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and
for the iso image as a whole."

Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about
the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to
the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the
morning.

Thanks,

//drew



Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
the trademarks with the project directly.

Least that is how I see it.

Thanks for your feedback,

//drew






Thanks to both of you for all this enlightening information, esp the 
clause about trademarks in ALv2. I'll need to take a closer look at the 
LGPL etc to see how this is covered there. I think I have a much better 
idea of what is actually going on now, and will just drop this thread.


It would be nice to provide our users with a bit more user-friendly 
information so I will think about all this and visit in a few days.



--

MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [HELP] How to install AOO silently on windows?

2012-06-14 Thread Andrew Rist




On 6/13/2012 10:45 PM, Zhe Liu wrote:

Hi all,
I plan to setup several testing machines (including Windows, Ubuntu,
Suse, Redhat, Mac OS X) to perform daily build verification testing on
our daily build (placed on
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/). The testing is
automated with script. I need a command to install AOO silently on
windows. Anybody know it? In addition, there is no mac build on
buildbot. Does anybody work on it?
There has been work on stabilizing the Mac host for the Mac buildbot, 
but that is ongoing.  We do have an open JIRA ticket for a Mac buildbot


A.

Re: Should we start posting regular dev snapshot builds for 3.4.1 or 3.5?

2012-06-14 Thread Andrew Rist

On 6/14/2012 8:20 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:

On 6/14/12 5:04 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:53:51AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

I've seeing a lot of bug fixes coming in. This is great!

But none of us are perfect. Sometimes bug fixes don't work or fixing
one bug causes another problem.That is why we test. And it is
best to test a bug fix before too much time has elapsed.

Would it make sense to agree on a date to post an updated dev
snapshot, so we can verify the bug fixes and ensure that no new
instability has been introduced? Maybe get into the practice of doing
this regularly, e.g., every 1 or 2 weeks or something.

IMO first we should decide if building 3.4.1 alphas/betas or 3.5 Developer
Snapshots; yes, the naming is a mess, we should clear this up, also
clear the page
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
IIRC in OOo times, Developer Snapshots where builds from the main code
line, for example http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/
Betas where from the release code line, for example
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO320/

I guess we could build both, at different intervals, a 3.5 Dev.Snap. per
month and a 3.4.1 beta every week or two, for example.

When you see my proposed schedule for 3.4.1 I have proposed to start dev
builds for 3.4.1 with the beginning of June. We are working on setting
up some local machines that allow us to automate this a little bit. I
hope we can start at least next week with this.

And I agree to Ariel that it make sense to start with dev builds for 3.5
(trunk) as well. And ideally we can use the binaries from the build bots
directly. As I learned today we changed the configure flags already and
we should check if we can these builds directly. Or if not we should
check what we need to fix to make them usable. That would of course make
things easier.
I think the builds from the buildbot could be directly used. I think
there are a couple of things that would need to be changed:

- create separate builds for 3.4.1 and trunk
- create weekly 'dev builds' that will be a bit different than the
nightlies, with extra steps required and correct configure options.
- create specific build for weekly rat + coverity + ??? for code
analysis that does not need to be run daily (or nightly)

Juergen

Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:19 -0700, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> 
> --- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo)  ha scritto:
> 
> ...
> 
> > >
> > > And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A
> > > as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an
> > > enhanced A. You won't probably
> > > remove features from A but take only some of B.
> > >
> > > So the decision between Method I and II is also the
> > > decision to work for an enhanced OOo/AOO or for an
> > > enhanced Symphony.
> > 
> 
> I might have missed something but the idea behind both
> options is to arrive to the same product, that means
> reusing as much available code as possible.
> 
> 
> > Also a clear +1 from me to go the way of option I.
> > 
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to could put the options
> in some time metric.
> 
> My guess (and it's only a guess, not an estimate)
> ...
> 
> Option I : 2 years.
> Option II: 8 months.
> 
> Personally, I think I will work on both options
> at the same time: 

*chuckling*... good choice.


> I do want to have an early
> Symphony BSD port. No objections if I start
> merging patches into Symphony once uploaded? :).

Oh no, a wild variant (mutant) version is born.. ;-) why not, you have
the skill and the clay in your hands.

//drew

> 
> Pedro.
> 
>

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 13:54 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew  wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>




> > >>
> >> >> I did not think it correct, back to my goal, I'm thinking is to license
> >> >> each piece and the whole under Creative Commons 3, No-Derivative. I
> >> >> don't care about attribution and I thought about non-commercial also..
> >> >>
> >> >> http://lo-portal.us//aoo/temp/AOO34-cd-folded-win.png
> >> >>
> >> >> (bottom of back cover :)
> >> >>
> >> >> so I would be using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and for the iso image
> >> >> as a whole.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think with that then , I'm comfortable actually asking the project
> >> >> (and ASF) for permission to use the 'real' logo this way.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The problem is this.   You are not asking permission (as far as I can
> >> > tell) to distribute a CD with the given art work, along the lines of
> >> > what Hirano-san did a while back.You are asking permission to use
> >> > the logo in artwork where others (unknown to us) would then be
> >> > downloading he artwork and would be doing the redistribution.  So even
> >> > if we did give you permission to use the logos, that permission would
> >> > not be transferred to the 3rd parties.
> >> >
> >> > Expressed another way:
> >> >
> >> > Your art work is a sum of three sets of rights:
> >> >
> >> > 1) The rights of the copyright holders of the underlying graphical
> >> > elements that you have reused.
> >> >
> >> > 2) Your rights to your original creation.
> >> >
> >> > 3) ASF's rights to control use of its trademarks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > #1 is already taken care of by the applicable license, whatever it is.
> >> >
> >> > #2 is whatever you want it to be, so long as it is compatible with #1.
> >> > You determine the license you want.
> >> >
> >> > #3 We can give permission for you to use the logo.  We've done that 
> >> > before.
> >> >
> >> > But that is purely from your perspective.  What about the perspective
> >> > of the person using art work and affixing it to a CD?
> >> >
> >> > #1 and #2 are OK.  Open source licenses transfer rights.  That is a
> >> > core principle.  But from trademark perspective, this is not true, so
> >> > giving you permission to use the logo doesn't help those who download
> >> > your artwork.   And I think it would be unlikely for us to grant that
> >> > permission without a set of constraints similar to what we did with
> >> > the "Get it here!" logo.
> >> >
> >> > Hopefully this makes sense.
> >> >
> >> > -Rob
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well given this response...more questions
> >>
> >> Rob, are you saying,  that since some of the "artwork" on the site that
> >> contains logo(s), whose use has been previously given; and even though
> >> these pieces of art have already been licensed in some way allowing
> >> perhaps for modification, that because they contain a logo (trademarked)
> >> that people wanting to use these art pieces have to again ask permission
> >> because of the logo inclusion?
> >>
> >> This seems to be counter to the licenses attached to these entities to me.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Howdy Kay, Rob
> >
> >
> > Actually I don't think it is really - and in reading Rob's reply he and
> > I are looking at, thinking about the same difference here. This is not
> > the same IMO as requesting to produce a run of CD's, or a single
> > publisher's request. Precisely why I've been so obtuse, perhaps.
> >
> > Where we (rob and I) I think diverge is what happens with the CC By-ND
> > license, it seems to me to fulfill the requirements needed.
> >
> 
> OK.  I didn't notice the significance of the ND.  That might work.
> But we'd need to connect the dots, e.g., the ISO is ND, and the
> artwork can only be used with that ISO, etc.
> 

Right - and why I said earlier "using this CC3-by-nd for each piece and
for the iso image as a whole."

Will stop hijacking this thread then and pop back to the thread about
the cd image with specifics and see about posting the actual email to
the PPMC/Trademark groups requesting permission to proceed in the
morning.

Thanks,

//drew


> > Anyone could use the files to produce a CD and then give it away, sell
> > it even, without any contact - but they can not legally alter anything,
> > I have not transfered any rights to any trademarks whatsoever, in fact
> > should someone contact me and ask to make alterations I would have no
> > right to allow them to to do so, of course they would be welcome to do
> > so _BUT_ that immediately means that they then need to clear the use of
> > the trademarks with the project directly.
> >
> > Least that is how I see it.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback,
> >
> > //drew
> >
>

Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

2012-06-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni



--- Gio 14/6/12, Marcus (OOo)  ha scritto:

...

> >
> > And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A
> > as base and pick the enhancements of B you'll get an
> > enhanced A. You won't probably
> > remove features from A but take only some of B.
> >
> > So the decision between Method I and II is also the
> > decision to work for an enhanced OOo/AOO or for an
> > enhanced Symphony.
> 

I might have missed something but the idea behind both
options is to arrive to the same product, that means
reusing as much available code as possible.


> Also a clear +1 from me to go the way of option I.
> 


It would be interesting to could put the options
in some time metric.

My guess (and it's only a guess, not an estimate)
...

Option I : 2 years.
Option II: 8 months.

Personally, I think I will work on both options
at the same time: I do want to have an early
Symphony BSD port. No objections if I start
merging patches into Symphony once uploaded? :).

Pedro.

Re: [UPDATE SERVICE] OOo 3.3 update service - next steps

2012-06-14 Thread Marcus (OOo)

Am 06/14/2012 09:43 AM, schrieb Oliver-Rainer Wittmann:

Hi,

On 12.06.2012 09:34, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann wrote:

[snip]

I was a little bit late - I was caught by some hacking to solve
issues.

OOo 3.3 Update Service is now active for: - Italian since Tuesday
10:00 (GMT+2) - Spanish and Japanese since Thurday 10:00 (GMT+2) -
English (US) since Friday 11:00 (GMT+2)

We are in a good shape with our OOo 3.3 update service.

Thus, I will add tomorrow morning 09:30 (GMT+2) - Chinese (simplified)
with download page http://www.openoffice.org/download

Maybe better would be: http://www.openoffice.org/zh-tw/

That would give them more context, including the translation of the AOO
3.4 announcement.

- Chinese (traditional) with http://www.openoffice.org/download

Same here, maybe better would be: http://www.openoffice.org/zh-cn/

- Dutch with http://www.openoffice.org/nl/downloaden.html - French
with
http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Telecharger/ - German with
http://www.openoffice.org/download

I wonder if better would be: http://www.openoffice.org/de/

So this is a question for others as well. We can either:

1) Point the user to the download page specifically, which is often in
English, rather than NL

2) Point the user to the NL page where available, provided it has a
prominent download link.

Advantage of #1 is it eliminates an extra mouse click. Advantage of
#2 is
it gives the user additional NL context, including the AOO 3.4
announcement and other material. So #2 is probably easier for someone
with less English language skills.

I tend to agree with you.

Unfortunately, #2 is not a real advantage (I'm only speak for the German
webpage). The main page is in German, yes, but right the next click
on the
big donwload button brings the user to an English-speaking webpage.

However, I would say that the "http://www.openoffice.org/de/"; link
can be
indeed chosen. Just because this will give the German main page more
attention than before. And - who knows - maybe also more volunteers
willing
to work on the German webpages.

I will do so, if nobody raises any objections.

I have activated OOo 3.3 update for: - Chinese (simplified) with download
page http://www.openoffice.org/zh-cn/ - Chinese (traditional) with
http://www.openoffice.org/zh-tw/ - Dutch with
http://www.openoffice.org/nl/downloaden.html - French with
http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Telecharger/ - German with
http://www.openoffice.org/de/

When I call again the Check Update funtion in OOo 3.3.0 I get to the
main download page with the following URL:

http://www.openoffice.org/download/?utm_source=OOo3_3&utm_medium=Client&utm_campaign=Upgrade

No indication about "de" in the URL and I don't pointed to the German
main page.

However, in SVN I see this:

http://www.openoffice.org/de/?utm_source=OOo3_3_de&utm_medium=Client&utm_campaign=Upgrade

Is there something wrong or do I have overlooked a byte?

Thanks

Marcus

I am proposing to add the remaining languages on Thursday morning
09:30 (GMT+2). These are: - Arabic - Czech - Galician - Hungarian -
Portuguese (Brazilian)

plus Russian - sorry, just forgotten

The above languages will follow on Thursday, if nobody objects.

Arabic, Czech, Galician, Hungarian, Portuguese (Brazilian) and Russian
have been
activated for the OOo 3.3 update service. All users of these languages are
directed to http://www.openoffice.org/download

If there are any localized download pages for the above languages,
please let me know - I can then update the corresponding information.

Please provide localized download pages, if possible.

Let me know, if the one or the other localized download page is available.

Best regards, Oliver.

Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO

2012-06-14 Thread Marcus (OOo)


Am 06/12/2012 10:53 PM, schrieb Christoph Jopp:



Am 12.06.2012 21:46, schrieb Regina Henschel:
[...]


I do not like version II. It is not about objective reasons, but about
emotions. I'm involved in OpenOffice.org more then ten years. After
Oracle shuts it down, being at Apache gives more the feeling of a
translation than of a new product. Using Symphony as base feels like
loosing OOo a second time.



+1

And I think it's not just about emotions. If you take A as base and pick
the enhancements of B you'll get an enhanced A. You won't probably
remove features from A but take only some of B.

So the decision between Method I and II is also the decision to work for
an enhanced OOo/AOO or for an enhanced Symphony.


Also a clear +1 from me to go the way of option I.

Marcus

Re: 4M later today

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
 wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >> I've just tried to download it from the French link(*), and it seems
>> >> to work just fine.
>> >> What else should we double check?
>> >>
>> >
>> > What I'm not seeing is users loading that webpage.  So I wonder if
>> > they are even seeing the upgrade notification?  When I get home I can
>> > try installing the French OOo 3.3.0 and see if it sees the update
>> > notification.
>> >
>>
>> I found and fixed the issue.  It was on the Google Analytics side.
>> The download page did not have the Javscript needed for GA in it.  I
>> thought it was there at one point, but maybe it was lost when we
>> refreshed the translation.  I checked the other download pages and the
>> Dutch version had the same issue, and I fixed that.
>>
>> We're now showing strong downloads from France, especially Paris,
>> Nantes, Lyon and Toulouse.
>
> Are the Google Analytics available to PPMC members? I mean access to the
> site, not the data.
>

Yes.  If you send me your Google ID (typically a Gmail address) I can
add you to the account.

-Rob

>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, drew  wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>>  cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>>  I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>>  Usage
>> 
>>  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> 
>>  First item, logos:
>> 
>>  "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>>  Apache
>>  OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> 
>>  I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" 
>>  page,
>>  which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> 
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> 
>>  -or- the older web logo
>> 
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> 
>>  So, I would like to do a few things:
>> 
>>  - also put
>>  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> 
>>  in
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> 
>>  Change
>> 
>>  "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>>  Apache
>>  OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> 
>>  -- to --
>> 
>>  "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>>  Apache
>>  OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> 
>>  and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> 
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> 
>>  (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to 
>>  remove)
>> 
>>  I will also change the logos area in:
>> 
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> 
>>  and list all possible logos in:
>> 
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> 
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> >>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> >>> to", is fine.
>> >>>
>> >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> >>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> >>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>> >>>
>> >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> >>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>> >>>
>>  Second item, other artwork:
>> 
>>  All artwork in:
>>  http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> 
>>  seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> 
>>  I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>>  viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to 
>>  use and
>>  tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I 
>>  think
>>  the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual 
>>  logo
>>  and nothing else):
>> 
>> >>>
>> >>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> >>> to use the trademark.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> >>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>> >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> >>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use t

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 10:01 -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> 
> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew  wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>  cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
> 
>  I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>  Usage
> 
>  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> 
>  First item, logos:
> 
>  "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>  Apache
>  OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> 
>  I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>  which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> 
>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> 
>  -or- the older web logo
> 
>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> 
>  So, I would like to do a few things:
> 
>  - also put
>  http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> 
>  in
>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> 
>  Change
> 
>  "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>  Apache
>  OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> 
>  -- to --
> 
>  "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>  Apache
>  OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> 
>  and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> 
>  http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> 
>  (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to 
>  remove)
> 
>  I will also change the logos area in:
> 
>  http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> 
>  and list all possible logos in:
> 
>  http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> >>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> >>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> >>> to", is fine.
> >>>
> >>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> >>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> >>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> >>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> >>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> >>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> >>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
> >>>
> >>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> >>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> >>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
> >>>
>  Second item, other artwork:
> 
>  All artwork in:
>  http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> 
>  seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> 
>  I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>  viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use 
>  and
>  tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I 
>  think
>  the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>  and nothing else):
> 
> >>>
> >>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> >>> to use the trademark.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> >>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> >>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> >>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> >>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> >>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> >>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> >>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> >>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> >>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> >>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> >>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> >>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> >>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> >>> to confuse or lure users.
> >>>
>  "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>  object as you like subject to the following conditi

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>
>
> On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk
  wrote:
>
> cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
>
> I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for
> Trademark
> Usage
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>
> First item, logos:
>
> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>
> I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html"
> page,
> which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>
> -or- the older web logo
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>
> So, I would like to do a few things:
>
> - also put
> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>
> in
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>
> Change
>
> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>
> -- to --
>
> "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
> Apache
> OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>
> and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>
> (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
> remove)
>
> I will also change the logos area in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>
> and list all possible logos in:
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>
>

 I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
 set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
 graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
 to", is fine.

 Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
 the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
 And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
 whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
 associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
 product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
 trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.

 ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
 is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
 www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )

> Second item, other artwork:
>
> All artwork in:
> http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>
> seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>
> I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will
> advise
> viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to
> use and
> tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I
> think
> the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual
> logo
> and nothing else):
>

 The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
 to use the trademark.

 I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
 something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
 look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
 for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
 requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
 If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
 probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
 under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.

 I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
 unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
 the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
 lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
 were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
 anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
 that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
 to confuse or lure users.

> "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify
> an
> object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>
> (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permissi

Re: official logos ???




On 06/13/2012 09:11 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 07:45:49PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:

yeah-- I was definitely thinking of extending the /images/AOO_logos
to house JUST the logos...


ooo-site/content/images/AOO_logos/svg/OOo_Website_v2_copy.svg is not
really an svg file, but an svg with a raster image embedded.

Can you upload the original SVG file for this,



What I used was from this page:


https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpageattachments.action?pageId=27834483

this svg...

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/download/attachments/27834483/AOO+Logo+SVG.svg

Is this not right?


You have two ways to test if this is a true svg graphic or a raster
graphic:

- open the file with an SVG editor or viewer, zoom the picture: if this
   svg has only a raster embedded, then when zooming you get to see the
   image individual pixels as squares
- open the file with a plain text editor: in a real svg graphic you see
   only mark up code; if a raster image is embedded, you see the image
   content, encoded. This is the case with the image of the link from
   above:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_graphics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_graphics

With the original SVG graphic it's possible to generate raster graphics
of any size without quality loss.


Regards


Ariel, thanks...

I won't go into what happened when I tried to deal with the svg file a 
day or so ago. I am NOT a graphics person...I'll work on this some more.
I can always learn new things as long as there's no risk of bone 
fractures! :)




--

MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes




On 06/14/2012 09:52 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew  wrote:

On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:

cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org

I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
Usage

http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html

First item, logos:

"For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."

I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
which is not the same as the logo on the website:

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png

-or- the older web logo

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png

So, I would like to do a few things:

- also put
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png

in
http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos

Change

"For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."

-- to --

"For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."

and link the word "logos" to all elements in:

http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos

(there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)

I will also change the logos area in:

http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/

and list all possible logos in:

http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/




I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
to", is fine.

Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.

( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )


Second item, other artwork:

All artwork in:
http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/

seems to be either LGPL or PDL.

I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
and nothing else):



The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
to use the trademark.

I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.

I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
to confuse or lure users.


"If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
object as you like subject to the following conditions:

(1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html



Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
keep that info all in one place.


(2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
use (either LGPL or PDL)

(3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html) license, you may modify it as you
like but should cite Apache OpenOffice (formerly OpenOffice.org) as the
provider of the original artwork on which your modification is based

(3) If the object is licensed PDL
(http://www.openoffice.org/licens

Re: 4M later today

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:16:28PM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >> I've just tried to download it from the French link(*), and it seems
> >> to work just fine.
> >> What else should we double check?
> >>
> >
> > What I'm not seeing is users loading that webpage.  So I wonder if
> > they are even seeing the upgrade notification?  When I get home I can
> > try installing the French OOo 3.3.0 and see if it sees the update
> > notification.
> >
> 
> I found and fixed the issue.  It was on the Google Analytics side.
> The download page did not have the Javscript needed for GA in it.  I
> thought it was there at one point, but maybe it was lost when we
> refreshed the translation.  I checked the other download pages and the
> Dutch version had the same issue, and I fixed that.
> 
> We're now showing strong downloads from France, especially Paris,
> Nantes, Lyon and Toulouse.

Are the Google Analytics available to PPMC members? I mean access to the
site, not the data.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgp2y97cBJRJP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM, drew  wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>> > Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>> > Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names 
>> > Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
>>
>> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
>> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
>> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
>>
>> > Second item, other artwork:
>> >
>> > All artwork in:
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
>> >
>> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
>> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use 
>> > and
>> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I 
>> > think
>> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
>> > and nothing else):
>> >
>>
>> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
>> to use the trademark.
>>
>> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
>> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
>> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
>> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
>> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
>> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
>> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
>> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
>>
>> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
>> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
>> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
>> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
>> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
>> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
>> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
>> to confuse or lure users.
>>
>> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
>> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
>> >
>> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>>
>> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
>> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
>> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
>> keep that info

Re: [WEBSITE] - help needed to update outdated web content




On 06/13/2012 07:48 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote:

KG02 - See comments inline.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Kevin Grignon
wrote:


KG01 - See comments inline.

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Kay Schenk  wrote:


Hi Kevin--


On 06/11/2012 10:55 PM, Kevin Grignon wrote:


Hello All,

I need some help.

Currently the UX page on http://www.openoffice.org/ux/ is outdated.

Please remove all content from this page and insert a link to the new AOO
UX homepage:
http://wiki.services.**openoffice.org/wiki/Apache_**
OpenOffice_User_Experience



I can do this for you...but are you sure we should remove the references
to the Specification Project and Accessibility Project also?

I can probably get to this tomorrow.

KG01 - Thanks for your support. As a starting point, I'd like to propose
we consolidate all content in a single trusted source - the new AOO UX
page. We can provide links to Spec Project and Access Projects from this
new AOO UX page, assuming this efforts are active. I'll capture an action
item to ensure that I move over all the relevant, active links.




KG02 - Ok, page contents captured. I will review and create links in new

AOO UX page. Feel free to proceed with clean up. Thanks again for your
help. Clean slate :)



OK -- I can get to this later today...I will just remove all content, 
and link to the new UX wiki site as you requested,








Once we get settled, we can spend some time to create a better UX page
for
www.openoffice.org. However, it is very low priority right now.

Please advise.

Regards,
Kevin



--
--**--**

MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"








--

MzK

"There's no crying in baseball!"
   -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 20:49 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: 
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
> > Usage
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
> > First item, logos:
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
> >
> > -or- the older web logo
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
> >
> > So, I would like to do a few things:
> >
> > - also put
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
> >
> > in
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > Change
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
> >
> > -- to --
> >
> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names Apache
> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
> >
> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
> >
> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to remove)
> >
> > I will also change the logos area in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > and list all possible logos in:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
> >
> >
> 
> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
> to", is fine.
> 
> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
> And we're not limited to a single symbol.  The question is really
> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that might be confusing.
> 
> ( A good, but dry article on this trademarks and open source software
> is here:  A good read on some of the issues here:
> www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/download/11/38 )
> 
> > Second item, other artwork:
> >
> > All artwork in:
> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
> >
> > seems to be either LGPL or PDL.
> >
> > I would like to include some verbiage on the above page that will advise
> > viewers to review the licensing for the object(s) they would like to use and
> > tell them simply (I think this would expedite usage. If we did this, I think
> > the ONLY thing they might explicitly require usage for is the actual logo
> > and nothing else):
> >
> 
> The license only deals with the copyright.  It doesn't give permission
> to use the trademark.
> 
> I'm not sure what we want to expedite here.   If we want to expedite
> something specific, we can think of ways of doing that. For example,
> look what we did with the "Get it here!" logo.  We made a special logo
> for use under specific conditions, but without any further permission
> requests.  For everything else, we still require explicit permission.
> If we want to expedite other kinds of logo requests, then we should
> probably think in similar terns, e.g., identify exactly which logo and
> under exactly what conditions we want it to be used.
> 
> I don't think we should give any permission for using any other logos,
> unless we've defined such conditions.  We should always keep in mind
> the websites that put up fake versions of OpenOffice, the ones that
> lead to users coming to us later complaining about how their systems
> were taken over by adware and browser pop ups.  If we simply allow
> anyone to use the logos then we have no protection against websites
> that imply association or endorsement from this project, and use this
> to confuse or lure users.
> 
> > "If you are planning on using an object from this area, you may modify an
> > object as you like subject to the following conditions:
> >
> > (1) Use of any of the logos requires explicit permission. See:
> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
> >
> 
> Could we just link this back to the trademark page?  We already say
> there that using the logos requires explicit permission.  We also give
> other useful information on how to request, etc.  It would be good to
> keep that info all in one place.
> 
> > (2) Please note the licensing conditions for any other object you want to
> > use (either LGPL or PDL)
> >
> > (3) If the object is licensed with LGPL
> > (http:/

Re: 4M later today

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Roberto Galoppini  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:


 On 06/13/2012 12:59 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>>
>> Current download count is 3968717.  We should hit 4M later today.  The
>> work Oliver has done to enable the update notifications for OOo 3.3.0
>> users has accelerated the download rate significantly.
>>
>
> Update:   We're at 4001934


 good for us and  I hope the updates are going well.

>>>
>>> In general, yes.  For example, yesterday's total download count was
>>> 170082.  Compare that to the 110K we get on most week days.
>>>
>>> The one exception is France.  I'm not seeing any upgrade downloads
>>> there.  It don't see any errors in the XML feed, but I wonder if
>>> something could be off there?
>>
>> I've just tried to download it from the French link(*), and it seems
>> to work just fine.
>> What else should we double check?
>>
>
> What I'm not seeing is users loading that webpage.  So I wonder if
> they are even seeing the upgrade notification?  When I get home I can
> try installing the French OOo 3.3.0 and see if it sees the update
> notification.
>

I found and fixed the issue.  It was on the Google Analytics side.
The download page did not have the Javscript needed for GA in it.  I
thought it was there at one point, but maybe it was lost when we
refreshed the translation.  I checked the other download pages and the
Dutch version had the same issue, and I fixed that.

We're now showing strong downloads from France, especially Paris,
Nantes, Lyon and Toulouse.

-Rob


>> Roberto
>>
>>
>> (*) http://www.openoffice.org/fr/Telecharger/
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Rob
>>>

>
> -Rob
>
>> And happy anniversary, everyone.  It was one year ago today that
>> members of the OpenOffice.org community, along with new friends from
>> all over the globe moved to Apache.
>>
>> -Rob


 --
 
 MzK

 "There's no crying in baseball!"
       -- Jimmy Dugan (Tom Hanks), "A League of Their Own"
>>
>> --
>> 
>> This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It
>> may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
>> intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
>> distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately
>> notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any
>> attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
>>

[Call-for-Review][Calc] Bug 119989: Pie chart height becomes greater when open Excel file

2012-06-14 Thread tanli li

Hi All,
  I write to request review of  a fix patch as following link
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119989

Defect: Pie chart height in AOO is higher than MS Excel

Root Cause:
When import .xls files, AOO3.4 don't read 3D height of Piechart in files
and let it show a fixed value of height.

Solution:
Set the piechart 3D height according to XclImpChChart3d record in imported
xls file. Correspondingly, add 3D height property names in xlchart.hxx
and set it to ScfPropertySet in xichart.cxx. When create 3D piechart, we
will get its 3D height from model and set height fDepth in
PieChart::createShapes().
In chart model, we also add default value of 3D height property as usual.

Re: Question about code

2012-06-14 Thread Очиров Николай


Thanks for your help, Andre and Tsumotu!


14.06.2012, 15:59, "Tsutomu Uchino" :
> Hello,
>
> 2012/6/14 Ochirov Nikolay :
>
>>  Hello!
>>  I have 2 questions
>>  What is the difference between functions  getDeployedPackages and
>>  getDeployedExtensions?
>>  And what the difference between bundled, shared and user extension?
>
> css::deployment::XPackageManager interface is deprecated to use now, see:
> http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/deployment/XPackageManager.html
>
>>  I don't understand it :-(
>>
>>  Regards, Nikolay
>
> - Tsutomu

Re: Should we start posting regular dev snapshot builds for 3.4.1 or 3.5?

On 6/14/12 5:04 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:53:51AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I've seeing a lot of bug fixes coming in.  This is great!
>>
>> But none of us are perfect.  Sometimes bug fixes don't work or fixing
>> one bug causes another problem.That is why we test.   And it is
>> best to test a bug fix before too much time has elapsed.
>>
>> Would it make sense to agree on a date to post an updated dev
>> snapshot, so we can verify the bug fixes and ensure that no new
>> instability has been introduced?  Maybe get into the practice of doing
>> this regularly, e.g., every 1 or 2 weeks or something.
> 
> IMO first we should decide if building 3.4.1 alphas/betas or 3.5 Developer
> Snapshots; yes, the naming is a mess, we should clear this up, also
> clear the page
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
> IIRC in OOo times, Developer Snapshots where builds from the main code
> line, for example http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/
> Betas where from the release code line, for example 
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO320/
> 
> I guess we could build both, at different intervals, a 3.5 Dev.Snap. per
> month and a 3.4.1 beta every week or two, for example.
> 

When you see my proposed schedule for 3.4.1 I have proposed to start dev
builds for 3.4.1 with the beginning of June. We are working on setting
up some local machines that allow us to automate this a little bit. I
hope we can start at least next week with this.

And I agree to Ariel that it make sense to start with dev builds for 3.5
(trunk) as well. And ideally we can use the binaries from the build bots
directly. As I learned today we changed the configure flags already and
we should check if we can these builds directly. Or if not we should
check what we need to fix to make them usable. That would of course make
things easier.

Juergen

Re: Should we start posting regular dev snapshot builds for 3.4.1 or 3.5?

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:53:51AM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> I've seeing a lot of bug fixes coming in.  This is great!
> 
> But none of us are perfect.  Sometimes bug fixes don't work or fixing
> one bug causes another problem.That is why we test.   And it is
> best to test a bug fix before too much time has elapsed.
> 
> Would it make sense to agree on a date to post an updated dev
> snapshot, so we can verify the bug fixes and ensure that no new
> instability has been introduced?  Maybe get into the practice of doing
> this regularly, e.g., every 1 or 2 weeks or something.

IMO first we should decide if building 3.4.1 alphas/betas or 3.5 Developer
Snapshots; yes, the naming is a mess, we should clear this up, also
clear the page
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Unofficial+Developer+Snapshots
IIRC in OOo times, Developer Snapshots where builds from the main code
line, for example http://hg.services.openoffice.org/DEV300/
Betas where from the release code line, for example 
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO340/
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO320/

I guess we could build both, at different intervals, a 3.5 Dev.Snap. per
month and a 3.4.1 beta every week or two, for example.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpLMXkzbWxNY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Should we start posting regular dev snapshot builds for 3.4.1 or 3.5?

I've seeing a lot of bug fixes coming in.  This is great!

But none of us are perfect.  Sometimes bug fixes don't work or fixing
one bug causes another problem.That is why we test.   And it is
best to test a bug fix before too much time has elapsed.

Would it make sense to agree on a date to post an updated dev
snapshot, so we can verify the bug fixes and ensure that no new
instability has been introduced?  Maybe get into the practice of doing
this regularly, e.g., every 1 or 2 weeks or something.

-Rob

Re: [HELP] How to install AOO silently on windows?

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/14/12 3:19 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:26:49AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> On 6/14/12 7:45 AM, Zhe Liu wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>> I plan to setup several testing machines (including Windows, Ubuntu,
> >>> Suse, Redhat, Mac OS X) to perform daily build verification testing on
> >>> our daily build (placed on
> >>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/). The testing is
> >>> automated with script. I need a command to install AOO silently on
> >>> windows. Anybody know it? In addition, there is no mac build on
> >>> buildbot. Does anybody work on it?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> we should keep in mind that the build bot builds are without category-b
> >> and not equal with the binary builds that we have release.
> > 
> > category b is enabled in the three build boots, see below.
> > 
> >> There is a feature gap between both that should be taken into account
> >> for testing.
> > 
> > The most important difference is with the Win boot, it disables ATL and
> > ActiveX.
> 
> oh good to know I have missed this. But why have we disabled ATL and
> ActiveX? Should we try to make it working on the build bots?

If you are building with the VS Express Edition, you need some manual
tweaking: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=118821#c12

But I'm not sure if the build boot has the Express Edition.


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgporrUvixMQm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [HELP] How to install AOO silently on windows?

On 6/14/12 3:19 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:26:49AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 6/14/12 7:45 AM, Zhe Liu wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I plan to setup several testing machines (including Windows, Ubuntu,
>>> Suse, Redhat, Mac OS X) to perform daily build verification testing on
>>> our daily build (placed on
>>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/). The testing is
>>> automated with script. I need a command to install AOO silently on
>>> windows. Anybody know it? In addition, there is no mac build on
>>> buildbot. Does anybody work on it?
>>>
>>>
>> we should keep in mind that the build bot builds are without category-b
>> and not equal with the binary builds that we have release.
> 
> category b is enabled in the three build boots, see below.
> 
>> There is a feature gap between both that should be taken into account
>> for testing.
> 
> The most important difference is with the Win boot, it disables ATL and
> ActiveX.

oh good to know I have missed this. But why have we disabled ATL and
ActiveX? Should we try to make it working on the build bots?

Juergen

> 
> 
> 
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/195/steps/shell_2/logs/stdio
> ./configure 
> --enable-verbose 
> --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
>  
> '--with-cl-home=/cygdrive/c/Progra~1/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC' 
> --with-jdk-home=/cygdrive/c/PROGRA~1/Java/jdk1.6.0_30 
> '--with-psdk-home=/cygdrive/c/PROGRA~1/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.1' 
> '--with-directx-home=C:\PROGRA~1\Microsoft DirectX SDK (June 2010)' 
> --with-ant-home=/cygdrive/c/ant 
> --disable-build-mozilla 
> --with-mozilla-build=/cygdrive/c/mozilla-build 
> --without-junit 
> --disable-atl 
> --disable-activex 
> --enable-category-b 
> --enable-minimizer 
> --enable-presenter-console 
> --enable-wiki-publisher 
> --enable-bundled-dictionaries 
> --with-build-version=Rev.1349631M
> 
> 
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-nightly/builds/160/steps/shell/logs/stdio
> ./configure 
> --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-i386 
> --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz 
> --with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
>  
> --enable-verbose 
> --enable-category-b 
> --enable-minimizer 
> --enable-presenter-console 
> --enable-opengl 
> --enable-dbus 
> --enable-gstreamer 
> --disable-binfilter 
> --with-package-format="deb rpm" 
> --with-build-version="2012-06-13_04:25:11-Rev.1349631"
> 
> 
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly/builds/253/steps/compile_2/logs/stdio
> ./configure
> --with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun
> --with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz
> --enable-verbose
> --enable-category-b
> --enable-minimizer
> --enable-presenter-console
> --enable-wiki-publisher
> --enable-opengl
> --enable-dbus
> --enable-gstreamer
> --enable-bundled-dictionaries
> --with-package-format="installed rpm deb"
> --with-build-version="2012-06-14_04:11:31 - Rev. 1350083"
> 
> 
> Regards
>

[Call for Review] Issue 119945 - Application crashed if undo adding caption to drawing object in sw

2012-06-14 Thread Lin Yuan

I have submit a patch to fix issue 119945. It's a crash issue when user do
"group","ungroup","add caption" operations for two drawing objects and then
do undo.

Detail issue info and comments of this issue please refer to
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119945
Patch info please refer to
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=78310

Please help review this fix. Thanks.

Thanks,
Lin Yuan

Re: [HELP] How to install AOO silently on windows?

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:26:49AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 6/14/12 7:45 AM, Zhe Liu wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I plan to setup several testing machines (including Windows, Ubuntu,
> > Suse, Redhat, Mac OS X) to perform daily build verification testing on
> > our daily build (placed on
> > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/install/). The testing is
> > automated with script. I need a command to install AOO silently on
> > windows. Anybody know it? In addition, there is no mac build on
> > buildbot. Does anybody work on it?
> > 
> > 
> we should keep in mind that the build bot builds are without category-b
> and not equal with the binary builds that we have release.

category b is enabled in the three build boots, see below.

> There is a feature gap between both that should be taken into account
> for testing.

The most important difference is with the Win boot, it disables ATL and
ActiveX.



http://ci.apache.org/builders/aoo-win7/builds/195/steps/shell_2/logs/stdio
./configure 
--enable-verbose 
--with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
 
'--with-cl-home=/cygdrive/c/Progra~1/Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0/VC' 
--with-jdk-home=/cygdrive/c/PROGRA~1/Java/jdk1.6.0_30 
'--with-psdk-home=/cygdrive/c/PROGRA~1/Microsoft SDKs/Windows/v6.1' 
'--with-directx-home=C:\PROGRA~1\Microsoft DirectX SDK (June 2010)' 
--with-ant-home=/cygdrive/c/ant 
--disable-build-mozilla 
--with-mozilla-build=/cygdrive/c/mozilla-build 
--without-junit 
--disable-atl 
--disable-activex 
--enable-category-b 
--enable-minimizer 
--enable-presenter-console 
--enable-wiki-publisher 
--enable-bundled-dictionaries 
--with-build-version=Rev.1349631M


http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-nightly/builds/160/steps/shell/logs/stdio
./configure 
--with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-openjdk-i386 
--with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz 
--with-dmake-url=http://dmake.apache-extras.org.codespot.com/files/dmake-4.12.tar.bz2
 
--enable-verbose 
--enable-category-b 
--enable-minimizer 
--enable-presenter-console 
--enable-opengl 
--enable-dbus 
--enable-gstreamer 
--disable-binfilter 
--with-package-format="deb rpm" 
--with-build-version="2012-06-13_04:25:11-Rev.1349631"


http://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly/builds/253/steps/compile_2/logs/stdio
./configure
--with-jdk-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-6-sun
--with-epm-url=http://ftp.easysw.com/pub/epm/3.7/epm-3.7-source.tar.gz
--enable-verbose
--enable-category-b
--enable-minimizer
--enable-presenter-console
--enable-wiki-publisher
--enable-opengl
--enable-dbus
--enable-gstreamer
--enable-bundled-dictionaries
--with-package-format="installed rpm deb"
--with-build-version="2012-06-14_04:11:31 - Rev. 1350083"


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina


pgpscK7mkOk7K.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [DISCUSS] logo usage -- nitpicking and some proposed changes

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Rob Weir  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Kay Schenk  wrote:
>> > cc/ ooo-market...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> > I'm looking at the information we have on the project site for Trademark
>> > Usage
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html
>> >
>> > First item, logos:
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > I would take this to mean the current logo on the "trademarks.html" page,
>> > which is not the same as the logo on the website:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/OOo_Website_v2_copy.png
>> >
>> > -or- the older web logo
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos/ooo-logo.png
>> >
>> > So, I would like to do a few things:
>> >
>> > - also put
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/images/300x100_dj_trans.png
>> >
>> > in
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > Change
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logo."
>> >
>> > -- to --
>> >
>> > "For the Apache OpenOffice project these trademarks include the names
>> Apache
>> > OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org, as well as the graphical logos."
>> >
>> > and link the word "logos" to all elements in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/images/AOO_logos
>> >
>> > (there's actually one item in there we aren't using which I need to
>> remove)
>> >
>> > I will also change the logos area in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/
>> >
>> > and list all possible logos in:
>> >
>> > http://www.openoffice.org/marketing/art/galleries/logos/
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I don't think we should limit the text to refer to a specific closed
>> set of logos.  But changing this to plural, maybe saying "and various
>> graphical logos" or, "and graphical logos, including but not limited
>> to", is fine.
>>
>
> What I'm trying to accomplish is to make it easier for the end user to
> distinguish between things they need to ask permission to use -- a finite
> set of actually "trademarked" items I'm assuming (but it could be my
> understanding of that term is just wrong), and things they don't -- because
> they fall under some licensing -- LGPL, PDL, or ALv2.
>

Something can be both trademarked and be under a LPGL, PDL or ALv2
license.  The license deals with copyright, which is different from
trademark.  These are two different species of intellectual property.
(Patents would be a third species, but that is not an issue in this
case)

The license might allow someone to copy the logo, modify it,
redistribute, etc., just like an OSS license allows someone to do the
same with source code.  But if there is also a trademark claimed on
the logo, that restricts the things someone can do with the logo.
These restrictions are in addition to whatever restrictions are there
per the license.

For example, take our main project logo.  If that were available under
a permissive license, someone could copy, modify, redistribute that
logo.  They might be able to print it out, put it in a frame and hang
it on their wall, for example.  But they would not be able to put it
on a website advertising "Open Office downloads" where the website was
actually downloading other software,  The trademark protects a symbol
associated with the origin of a product.

Think for example, of the controlled appellations in the EC,
associated with wines and cheese and other food products.  They ensure
that the use of the term "Parmigiano-Reggiano" is used for only a
specific kind of cheese from a specific region of Italy.  No one else
can legally use that name.  It is like a trademark, protecting a name
that defines the origin of a product.

> So, in this context, I am not understanding the phrase -- "including but
> not limited to".
>
> Why isn't this set limited?
>

The set is limited by what we actually use in the project to identify
the product.  But these logos can occur in many different variations
and combinations. I don't think we can enumerate them all.  And there
is risk if we claim to have listed them all, but then miss one, or
fail to keep the list up to date.

>
>
>> Remember, a trademark is not limited to a specific file.  It protects
>> the symbol, which might occur in slight variations in various files.
>> And we're not limited to a single symbol.
>
>
> Right, which I why I wanted to point them to just the items in
>  /images/AOO_logos
>
> so they know exactly which ones they need to request permission for.
>
>  The question is really
>> whether we're using that symbol to market our product, that is
>> associated with our product and identifies us as the source of the
>> product.  So from a trademark perspective we could have several
>> trademarks,  But from a marketing perspective that mig

Re: [Call For Review] Bugzilla 119963

2012-06-14 Thread Oliver-Rainer Wittmann


Hi,

On 14.06.2012 13:58, chengjh wrote:

This is the I implementation of  the proposal described in thread "Propose
to Implement the Loading of TOC and Improve TOC Fidelity with MS Word
Binary Document"..review comments expected...

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Fan Zheng  wrote:


Hi, all:

This is ZhengFan. I have finished the bug fix/feature implementation of
bugzilla 119963. Now the patch was attached for review. Thanks a lot!

Here is the link:

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119963





I am volunteering to review the patch.

Best regards, Oliver.

[Call for review]Bug 119632: Macro button lost if save template to .doc file

2012-06-14 Thread debin lei

Hi, all

I had a fix for bug 119632

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119632

Can anyone help me to review the fix?
Thanks,
-- 
Best regards
Lei Debin

Re: Question about code

2012-06-14 Thread Tsutomu Uchino

Hello,

2012/6/14 Ochirov Nikolay :
> Hello!
> I have 2 questions
> What is the difference between functions  getDeployedPackages and
> getDeployedExtensions?
> And what the difference between bundled, shared and user extension?
css::deployment::XPackageManager interface is deprecated to use now, see:
http://www.openoffice.org/api/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/deployment/XPackageManager.html

> I don't understand it :-(
>
> Regards, Nikolay

- Tsutomu

Re: [Call For Review] Bugzilla 119963

2012-06-14 Thread chengjh

This is the I implementation of  the proposal described in thread "Propose
to Implement the Loading of TOC and Improve TOC Fidelity with MS Word
Binary Document"..review comments expected...

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Fan Zheng  wrote:

> Hi, all:
>
> This is ZhengFan. I have finished the bug fix/feature implementation of
> bugzilla 119963. Now the patch was attached for review. Thanks a lot!
>
> Here is the link:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119963
>

-- 

Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng

Re: Propose to Implement the Loading of TOC and Improve TOC Fidelity with MS Word Binary Document

2012-06-14 Thread Fan Zheng

Well, good news. Then the efforts on TOC improvement stuff in ooxml filter
would be smaller. But sorry that I do not exactly know the detail process
of ooxml loading. l need some time on investigation.
在 2012-6-14 傍晚6:34，"Ying Zhang" 写道：

> thx Zheng Fan, yes, I'm thinking on the support of OOXML TOC import, and
> ooxml filter could support nested field, but I'm not sure whether it's the
> only blocker issue for ooxml toc support, do you have any idea about the
> solution?
>
>
> 2012/6/13 Fan Zheng 
>
> > to Zhang ying:
> > it is possible for ooxml filter on having this improvement, if the nested
> > fields could be supported.
> > 在 2012-5-30 上午9:58，"Ying Zhang" 写道：
> >
> > > I see only the improvement for interoperability with MS Binary file
> > format
> > > been mentioned. But since the same problems exist for MS OOXML file
> > format.
> > > Could we consider both and find whether we could define same mechanism
> > and
> > > same scope to make it consistence with each other.
> > > I would like to take the MS OOXML part.
> > >
> > > 2012/5/29 chengjh 
> > >
> > > > Oliver,welcome...
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
> > > > orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 29.05.2012 09:24, chengjh wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi All,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> TOC(Table of Contents) is a significant feature in Aoo
> > > > Writer..Although,it
> > > > >> has provided powerful capabilities to benefit end users for
> > > > productivity,
> > > > >> the followed areas,especially the fidelity with MS Word, still
> need
> > > > >> improvements..I propose them and put them as the candidates
> > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
> > > > >> AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning<
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
> > > > >
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> the next release for your comments...thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> 1)The TOC data of a MS Word document is not parsed completely.And
> > the
> > > > >> actual TOC data is from silently updating once a MS Word Document
> > > > >> loaded.Thus,the fidelity can not be ensured especially when the
> > > document
> > > > >> contents that impact TOC have been changed after creating TOC in
> MS
> > > > >> Word.So,we propose to implement the TOC loading process to replace
> > the
> > > > >> update action.
> > > > >> 2)The tab between chapter number and TOC entry lost when loading a
> > MS
> > > > Word
> > > > >> document,which leads to different gap between chapter number and
> TOC
> > > > >> entry.That looks different from MS Word.
> > > > >> 3)Jump info will be lost when loading MS Word TOC created by
> > > un-checking
> > > > >> "Use hyperlinks instead of page numbers". To this kind of TOC,end
> > > users
> > > > >> can
> > > > >> only press ctrl+mouse to click the page number of the TOC entry
> for
> > > > >> jumping
> > > > >> in MS Word.
> > > > >> 4)The customized character attributes will be lost when loading MS
> > > Word
> > > > >> TOC
> > > > >> created by un-checking "Use hyperlinks instead of page numbers".
> To
> > > this
> > > > >> kind of TOC,the customized character attributes of the target
> > > paragraphs
> > > > >> can be collected into TOC in MS Word.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > > Such an improvement makes sense from my point of view.
> > > > >
> > > > > If possible I would help on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards, Oliver.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Propose to Implement the Loading of TOC and Improve TOC Fidelity with MS Word Binary Document

2012-06-14 Thread Ying Zhang

thx Zheng Fan, yes, I'm thinking on the support of OOXML TOC import, and
ooxml filter could support nested field, but I'm not sure whether it's the
only blocker issue for ooxml toc support, do you have any idea about the
solution?


2012/6/13 Fan Zheng 

> to Zhang ying:
> it is possible for ooxml filter on having this improvement, if the nested
> fields could be supported.
> 在 2012-5-30 上午9:58，"Ying Zhang" 写道：
>
> > I see only the improvement for interoperability with MS Binary file
> format
> > been mentioned. But since the same problems exist for MS OOXML file
> format.
> > Could we consider both and find whether we could define same mechanism
> and
> > same scope to make it consistence with each other.
> > I would like to take the MS OOXML part.
> >
> > 2012/5/29 chengjh 
> >
> > > Oliver,welcome...
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann <
> > > orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 29.05.2012 09:24, chengjh wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi All,
> > > >>
> > > >> TOC(Table of Contents) is a significant feature in Aoo
> > > Writer..Although,it
> > > >> has provided powerful capabilities to benefit end users for
> > > productivity,
> > > >> the followed areas,especially the fidelity with MS Word, still need
> > > >> improvements..I propose them and put them as the candidates
> > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/**
> > > >> AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning<
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Feature+Planning
> > > >
> > > >> of
> > > >> the next release for your comments...thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> 1)The TOC data of a MS Word document is not parsed completely.And
> the
> > > >> actual TOC data is from silently updating once a MS Word Document
> > > >> loaded.Thus,the fidelity can not be ensured especially when the
> > document
> > > >> contents that impact TOC have been changed after creating TOC in MS
> > > >> Word.So,we propose to implement the TOC loading process to replace
> the
> > > >> update action.
> > > >> 2)The tab between chapter number and TOC entry lost when loading a
> MS
> > > Word
> > > >> document,which leads to different gap between chapter number and TOC
> > > >> entry.That looks different from MS Word.
> > > >> 3)Jump info will be lost when loading MS Word TOC created by
> > un-checking
> > > >> "Use hyperlinks instead of page numbers". To this kind of TOC,end
> > users
> > > >> can
> > > >> only press ctrl+mouse to click the page number of the TOC entry for
> > > >> jumping
> > > >> in MS Word.
> > > >> 4)The customized character attributes will be lost when loading MS
> > Word
> > > >> TOC
> > > >> created by un-checking "Use hyperlinks instead of page numbers". To
> > this
> > > >> kind of TOC,the customized character attributes of the target
> > paragraphs
> > > >> can be collected into TOC in MS Word.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Such an improvement makes sense from my point of view.
> > > >
> > > > If possible I would help on this.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards, Oliver.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Best Regards,Jianhong Cheng
> > >
> >
>

Re: [HELP] How to install AOO silently on windows?