On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/7/13 8:59 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> Rob Weir wrote: >>> But I would have trademark concerns if a statement like this installed >>> anything but OpenOffice: >>> sudo yum install openoffice.org >> >> It doesn't. But indeed the openoffice.org alias has been discussed and I >> hope we can get it reassigned or dropped without invoking trademarks. >> Anyway, it is not one of the technically problematic aliases but just a >> convenience alias, so it can be addressed after we have packages ready. >> > > We should argue that the aliases came from OpenOffice and that they were > hijacked if you want by LibreOffice. They even used the package name in > the past to install LibreOffice and not OpenOffice. We tolerated it > because we had no updated version in place with the latest security > fixes. But that's it and the game changed, we have a current version and > will provide future versions. >
It comes down to user confusion. We've already seen users confused by this, where they think they are installing OpenOffice and instead get something else. This is classic trademark infringement. You can't offer bottles of Coca-Cola for to consumers and then fill the bottles with Pepsi. > And again changing soffice means much more work and I really don't see > why we should change it because they belong to OpenOffice. > > Some magic UNO bootstrap code used by UNO client applications used the > soffice alias for example. Changing it would break potential client > applications. > > The other aliases like oowriter are obvious where they come from, why > should we change them? > > It is important to come back in distros but we should not easy give up > what belongs to OpenOffice. > > Juergen > >
