Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Hi, Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir: This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread. OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we could broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote: removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is some work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances (forums, mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is another issue we are still working on. It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear -- you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very open and transparent. Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to? Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term goals are? Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life to OpenOffice.org users. For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work going on in the project here. Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will result in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular intervals. We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business. We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the project and the participants. Greetings Stefan -Rob The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and bugfixing issues, Martin
Re: Time for the ASF to send an Open Letter?
Hi, Am 17.11.2011 08:51, schrieb Dave Fisher: What is difficult for me to understand is that both Stefan Taxhet and Martin Hollmichel signed up as Initial Committers to the Apache project, but have never signed an iCLA. Martin and I sent signed iCLAs to secretary@ Is there a page where this should be/is acknowledged or did we miss some additional formality? There are many more than four people involved. The Team OpenOffice website must immediately acknowledge that OpenOffice.org is a registered trademark of the Apache Software Foundation. Please point us to the phrase you want to be used. Is it just the adaption of the phrases that are at http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/list/ ? The Team OpenOffice site must recognize the Apache project. We plan to mention the players in the arena (Apache/AOO, TDF/LO) on the website. Which form of recognition of the Apache project could you think of? And yes, we are aware that the website content in general needs an update. Greetings Stefan I don't think a joint statement is appropriate without properly respectful actions beforehand. Regards, Dave - Shane As much as we would like to do an interim release I am afraid there are issues that won't make it possible: - Apache releases have to be approved by the PPMC and can only be released under an Apache License. - The old OpenOffice.Org made available 3.4 RC, releasing 3.3.1 would not give the right signal wrt continuity. - The ASF, through the PPMC, cannot approve code that it hasn't seen and AFAICT Team OOo hasn't been very visible here in the community (sorry if I just missed it). This said, 3.4 is advancing very nicely. I don't want to hurry things but I think we are moving in the right direction. Pedro.
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Hi Don, all, Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison: On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet wrote: Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir: This topic sounds important, so I'm moving it to its own thread. OK, let's talk about a maintenance release first; but at some point we could broaden the scope to releases of Apache OpenOffice too. On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Martin Hollmichel > wrote: removal of the Oracle branding is the easy part. As said before, having a joint messaging with ASF about this release and the future releases is some work to do. Adopting references from old OpenOffice.org instances (forums, mailing lists, issue tracking) to the new ones in the ReadMe File is another issue we are still working on. It is hard to think about a joint message when we know almost nothing about what you are doing. What we're doing here at Apache is clear -- you see our mailing lists, wiki, SVN repository, etc. It is all very open and transparent. Do you have a mailing list or something that we can subscribe to? Could you say a little about what your short term and longer term goals are? Martin and others mentioned that there is a need to show a sign of life to OpenOffice.org users. Do you agree that Apache OpenOffice, the project and the future product is sufficient to 'show sign of life' to users? If not, why not? I think the project Apache OpenOffice and a release filling the gap between OOo 3.3.0 and future product releases are required. The schedule people are used to listed 3.x releases (minor) every 6 month with micro/bugfix releases (3.x.y) after 3 month in between. This means that we are more than overdue since the 3.3.0 release in January 2011. So an interim release of improved bits and bytes together with a description of the work towards "the future product" could convince people much more than an optimistic perspective of future achievements. For us short term goals are to (re)gain confidence in OpenOffice.org and support for the existing user base. We think this requires a release rather soon; and we don't see a conflict but a complement with work going on in the project here. What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a proposal for what you wish to name your release. Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development work for future releases. Long term we want to further sustainable development work. This will result in a reliable product that is improved and delivered at regular intervals. We see such a product as the basis for ongoing business. Does Team OpenOffice.org e.V. plan to do their 'sustainable work' within the Apache OpenOffice project? If so, Team OpenOffice.org will have the ability to build binary distributions for release under the AL2 license for ongoing business. Yes, that's what one could envision. This discussion has been postponed after the resolution of the current topic. And my understanding is that this is not going to be happen this year. We encourage you to present a more complete proposal for discussion. This is a start. I got this message from Rob's post (which I hope to address here too). Please give some hints which questions should be covered by the proposal and we'll prepare a request. Greetings Stefan Thanks. We are comfortable about continuing the talk here on this list. I would appreciate if we come to a picture that satisfies users, the project and the participants. Likewise, I personally welcome you and your TO e.V. colleagues to more actively join and participate in a positive and productive discussion on this list. Greetings Stefan -Rob The coding work we've done in the 3.3.1 is about some security and bugfixing issues, Martin
Re: Source Code Sponsor of OOo
Hi Rob, All, We are sorry for the confusion caused by our website. In the meantime we took the English pages down and started the rework with the German pages. Your and Shane's separately sent input will guide us during the creation of the revised content. Greetings Stefan Am 21.11.2011 17:14, schrieb Rob Weir: On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM, Martin Hollmichel wrote: Shane, the reference to the Apache Project is required here, agreed. We are reworking the content of the pages to make the message more clear, your guidance on how to point to Apache OpenOffice project is appreciated here, Hi Martin, Before anyone cuts my head off, let me preface my remarks by stating that this is my personal view, which others on the project may agree or disagree with. Personally, I agree with your high level goals, at least as I understand them. So I want you to succeed here. But I did review the http://teamopenoffice.org/en/ website yesterday and noted the following areas that appeared problematic to me. IANAL, of course, but I think these areas should be addressed: 1) Apache owns the trademark on the blue& black text OpenOffice.org + birds logo. The Team OpenOffice uses this logo on their home page without permission from Apache. 2) Apache owns the trademark on the name "OpenOffice.org". This name and its common abbreviation "OOo" are used throughout the website without permission. 3) Use of the confusingly similar name "Team OpenOffice" without disclaimer stating they are not affiliated with the Apache OpenOffice project or the Apache Software Foundation. 4) The pervasive claims that Team OpenOffice is "saving OpenOffice.org" without a disclaimer saying that they are not affiliated with the Apache OpenOffice project or the Apache Software Foundation. 5) No where on the website do we see acknowledgement that OpenOffice.org is a trademark of the ASF 6) The website suggested that donors/sponsors can get their names added to an OpenOffice.org release. I would certainly be supportive of Apache granting permission for some uses of the trademark by Team OpenOffice. But I think (again, my own personal opinion, so please everyone, stop sharpening those axes), the primary goals should be: 1) Make it clear to the visitor what the scope of Team OpenOffice activities are compared to Apache activities. Confusing these, especially in the context of fundraising, is going to cause problems. 2) Express your support of the Apache OpenOffice project and the larger ecosystem, which I believe is well-intentioned and serious, without blurring the distinction between what is Apache and what is Team OpenOffice. 3) Raising funds for your organization's activities, without using Apache-owned trademarks in a way that could be confused as expressing Apache support or participation in the fundraising. Regards, -Rob Martin On 11/21/11 2:19 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote: Note that the listed page is in no way associated with the ASF nor the AOO podling, and as best I can tell is directly infringing on a number of registered trademarks of the ASF. I will be sending the admins of that website an email shortly demanding that that page and similar fundraising pages are taken down, and that their attempts (as it seems from that page) to create what I can only imagine would be called OpenOffice.org 3.4 cease, and immediately start using a new, non-infringing name. At the ASF, our software is *always* free (as in no cost); the ASF will *never* charge for either our source code our or project's software product releases. Any time you see someone stating or implying that you need to pay for any ASF-hosted code you should be suspicious. - Shane On 2011-11-20 12:44 PM, Thomas Horn wrote: Hi all, I've read on http://teamopenoffice.org/en/become-a-partner.html that you could become a "Source Code Sponsor" with your named displayed in OpenOffice.org 3.4 by paying EUR 5000. Do you really thinks that this is a good idea? I think that will lower the neutrality of the Apache Foundation as I before wasn't under the impression that you could buy yourself into Apache software. Greetings from Thomas
Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Hi, Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison: We encourage you to present a more complete proposal for discussion. This is a start. Just a quick note that a proposal has been submitted using the form at http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/trademarks.html to ooo-private... Greetings Stefan
