Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 18:43 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Caolan, I think we got that covered already in the text... Or am I wrong? I thought it was such that the default logos (with TDF on it) could be used under the substantially unchanged concept. But on re-reading, it reads more like the implication is that it can be called LibreOffice under the substantially unchanged concept, but that death to anyone using the TDF tagline ? I'm not super-attached to the TDF tagline for distro/personal builds, but I am attached to using the default logos, whichever they are, for distro/personal builds. C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
Hi, Von: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Hmm, if that confuses you, it will confuse otgers. I htink, what is confusing here is that ... Le 8 août 2011 11:50, Caolan McNamara cao...@skynet.ie a écrit : I'm not super-attached to the TDF tagline for distro/personal builds, but I am attached to using the default logos, whichever they are, for distro/personal builds. ... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should be used for instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document Foundation. Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed via TDF resources. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Fw: [libreoffice-users] Slovak site
Hi Peter, On 2011-07-20 at 16:26 +0100, Tom Davies wrote: my name is Peter Kubek and I am from Slovak republic. I am owner domain www.libreoffice.sk Can I work on slovak site? sk.libreoffice.org? So I think the best would be to contact the Slovak mailing lists directly: http://sk.libreoffice.org/ako-prispie/ Regarding www.libreoffice.sk, if you want to redirect that to http://sk.libreoffice.org (I think the best solution), it is possible to setup the TDF configuration so that all you'd need to do would be to change the www.libreoffice.sk DNS entry to the right TDF server - I am doing the same with http://www.libreoffice.cz . Regards, Kendy -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
Hi :) I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk in a way that could NOT be fix easily quickly would be really dumb. It is an easily avoidable risk. The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Indeed, there was a meeting that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be avoided by using GnuLinux if easily possible. With GnuLinux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally consistent documentation. The licensing of GnuLinux tends to be copy-left allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows Eula is very restrictive and people in the discussion even highlighted paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make them useful for documentation would be a violation. There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was produced using non-Windows screen-shots. In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS for saving data. The TomTom devices used what 'everyone' uses for saving data. The hardware was their own, the systems were their own but they used Fat32, or Fat16 file-systems for saving their own data onto their own devices. Fat32, Fat16 or just plain Fat are 'used by everyone' for usb-sticks, memory-cards, sd-cards for cameras, phones, mobile devices, calculators and so on. Apparently we should all pay MS for the privilege of storing our own data on our own systems just in case MS suddenly decides to single us out while ignoring other people's violations. Personally on small external devices i tend to stick with ext2 or i don't even worry about the re-writes issue on older SSd tech, and use ext4. The Fat systems is notoriously flaky and even Ntfs has horrible problems that are neatly avoided in the ancient ext2 so i actually gain a lot by doing so. Occasionally i can't share data on it with insecure systems. Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner? Regards from Tom :) From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Mon, 8 August, 2011 1:07:20 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots My proposal stands :-) :-) On 8 Aug 2011, at 01:04, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) That would completely change the statement. It is the opposite of what Florian wrote. Are we going to reopen discussion about the issue again? Regards from Tom :) From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Sun, 7 August, 2011 13:44:24 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots The Steering Committee acknowledges that there is a small legal risk involved for screenshots on non-free operating systems, but the risk is deemed low. This is too strong. The fact is, every action any project takes is subject to legal risk. Name one that isn't. All that's happened here is that (for whatever motive) the theoretical risk has been articulated for (a part of) this case. I'd suggest saying: The Steering Committee feels that the legal risk involved in using screenshots of non-free desktops in documentation is no greater than any other theoretical risk facing software projects. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
Hi Tom, Am 08.08.2011 15:43, schrieb Tom Davies: The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Indeed, there was a meeting that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be avoided by using GnuLinux if easily possible. this was briefly mentioned during the call: the publisher of the screenshots would be at risk. So initially the risk at the indiviual who contributes the screenshot (and therefore publishes it at the wiki, a documentation collaboration site or anywhere else). If TDF makes the document an official TDF documentation (means TDF is the visible publisher) the risk is at TDF as well. With GnuLinux screen-shots there is NO risk. Oh, who did say that ? :) E.g. no Gnu/Linux software license gives you permission to take a screenshot and redistribute this under a CC license. Of course, there would be hardly any FLOSS developer claiming that you should not do so. There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was produced using non-Windows screen-shots. Oh - imho TDF should be there to protect individuals (who actually contribute to TDF projects), not to sue them. In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS for saving data. The TomTom devices used what 'everyone' uses for saving data. The hardware was their own, the systems were their own but they used Fat32, or Fat16 file-systems for saving their own data onto their own devices. This is a completely different story, as parts of FAT are patent protected and MS is getting patent license fees from almost all implementors (so yes, even for your digicam you likey pay to MS). But .. this is getting far off-topic. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi :) I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk in a way that could NOT be fix easily quickly would be really dumb. It is an easily avoidable risk. I think it is unnecessary to worry about fabricated convoluted legal scenario without precedent. The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Did you pool the steering committee member individually ? what basis do you have to claim that just _one person_ think that this legal angle to force a POV is a strawman ? Indeed, there was a meeting that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be avoided by using GnuLinux if easily possible. using Linux and/or Gnu does not avoid the alleged risk. Neither own the copyright on icons that would be displayed in a screen-shoot. With GnuLinux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally consistent documentation. Yes the 'consistent' argument is indeed valid... but the so-called legal risk is a straw man The licensing of GnuLinux tends to be copy-left allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows Eula is very restrictive The Eula could demand that you give away your first born child, that would still not make that the Law. actually the French version of the EULA for Windows 7 Basic, Section 27, spell out clearly that Eula does not trump the Law of the Land. and people in the discussion even highlighted paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make them useful for documentation would be a violation. There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves Apparently we don't even need Microsoft to conduct FUD campaign, we do just fine on our own :-( The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was produced using non-Windows screen-shots. In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS for saving data. What patent do screen-shoots infringe ? And how did you get access to confidential settlement terms ? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html : Specific financial terms were not disclosed. [snip irrelevant US-patent non-sens ] Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner? Or just easily not enocurage those that manufacture brick wall in their path. Norbert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
Hi :) It's easy to make empty promises but there is nothing written down to say that the Steering Committee and BoD would accept any responsibility at all. The risk is all on individual contributors at the moment. Regards from Tom :) From: André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Mon, 8 August, 2011 18:31:49 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots snip / Oh - imho TDF should be there to protect individuals (who actually contribute to TDF projects), not to sue them. snip / regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
Hi :) There were a reasonable amount of +1s to the first draft produced by Florian and no-one voted against it then or after the meeting. We had just heard the advice of a couple of legal people one of whom specialises in this type of area. Regards from Tom :) From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Mon, 8 August, 2011 18:41:05 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi :) I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk in a way that could NOT be fix easily quickly would be really dumb. It is an easily avoidable risk. I think it is unnecessary to worry about fabricated convoluted legal scenario without precedent. The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Did you pool the steering committee member individually ? what basis do you have to claim that just _one person_ think that this legal angle to force a POV is a strawman ? Indeed, there was a meeting that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be avoided by using GnuLinux if easily possible. using Linux and/or Gnu does not avoid the alleged risk. Neither own the copyright on icons that would be displayed in a screen-shoot. With GnuLinux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally consistent documentation. Yes the 'consistent' argument is indeed valid... but the so-called legal risk is a straw man The licensing of GnuLinux tends to be copy-left allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows Eula is very restrictive The Eula could demand that you give away your first born child, that would still not make that the Law. actually the French version of the EULA for Windows 7 Basic, Section 27, spell out clearly that Eula does not trump the Law of the Land. and people in the discussion even highlighted paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make them useful for documentation would be a violation. There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves Apparently we don't even need Microsoft to conduct FUD campaign, we do just fine on our own :-( The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was produced using non-Windows screen-shots. In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS for saving data. What patent do screen-shoots infringe ? And how did you get access to confidential settlement terms ? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html : Specific financial terms were not disclosed. [snip irrelevant US-patent non-sens ] Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner? Or just easily not enocurage those that manufacture brick wall in their path. Norbert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
:-) What is the precise issue you have with the proposed amended language, Tom? Please be specific so we aren't just appealing to the gallery here. I assert that the language I am proposing is a minor change that has the same effect as the earlier text but ensures we do not leave hostages to fortune. Are there any others sharing Tom's concern please? S. /:-) On 8 Aug 2011, at 23:59, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) There were a reasonable amount of +1s to the first draft produced by Florian and no-one voted against it then or after the meeting. We had just heard the advice of a couple of legal people one of whom specialises in this type of area. Regards from Tom :) From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Mon, 8 August, 2011 18:41:05 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi :) I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk in a way that could NOT be fix easily quickly would be really dumb. It is an easily avoidable risk. I think it is unnecessary to worry about fabricated convoluted legal scenario without precedent. The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Did you pool the steering committee member individually ? what basis do you have to claim that just _one person_ think that this legal angle to force a POV is a strawman ? Indeed, there was a meeting that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be avoided by using GnuLinux if easily possible. using Linux and/or Gnu does not avoid the alleged risk. Neither own the copyright on icons that would be displayed in a screen-shoot. With GnuLinux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally consistent documentation. Yes the 'consistent' argument is indeed valid... but the so-called legal risk is a straw man The licensing of GnuLinux tends to be copy-left allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows Eula is very restrictive The Eula could demand that you give away your first born child, that would still not make that the Law. actually the French version of the EULA for Windows 7 Basic, Section 27, spell out clearly that Eula does not trump the Law of the Land. and people in the discussion even highlighted paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make them useful for documentation would be a violation. There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves Apparently we don't even need Microsoft to conduct FUD campaign, we do just fine on our own :-( The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was produced using non-Windows screen-shots. In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS for saving data. What patent do screen-shoots infringe ? And how did you get access to confidential settlement terms ? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html : Specific financial terms were not disclosed. [snip irrelevant US-patent non-sens ] Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner? Or just easily not enocurage those that manufacture brick wall in their path. Norbert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots
Hi :) The precise problem i have with the amended wording is that it reverses the meaning of the 2 paragraphs. Florian did a minor adjustment but your's completely changes it to say the opposite of the original. I suspect that no-one on the SC or BoD has any legal training or experience in this area of law even for just the US let alone globally. The couple of experienced legal professionals that were able to let the list know their opinions last time are probably not thrilled with the idea of again spending time to give advice again about the same issue. Can the SC stand by a decision it made a couple of months ago or not? Should we ignore legal opinion and go with whatever seems like common sense? Regards from Tom :) From: Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Tue, 9 August, 2011 0:06:03 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots :-) What is the precise issue you have with the proposed amended language, Tom? Please be specific so we aren't just appealing to the gallery here. I assert that the language I am proposing is a minor change that has the same effect as the earlier text but ensures we do not leave hostages to fortune. Are there any others sharing Tom's concern please? S. /:-) On 8 Aug 2011, at 23:59, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) There were a reasonable amount of +1s to the first draft produced by Florian and no-one voted against it then or after the meeting. We had just heard the advice of a couple of legal people one of whom specialises in this type of area. Regards from Tom :) From: Norbert Thiebaud nthieb...@gmail.com To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Mon, 8 August, 2011 18:41:05 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] decision on screenshots On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Tom Davies tomdavie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Hi :) I think that unnecessarily exposing TDF (or people doing work for it) to a risk in a way that could NOT be fix easily quickly would be really dumb. It is an easily avoidable risk. I think it is unnecessary to worry about fabricated convoluted legal scenario without precedent. The fact that one person is ignorant of the risk (or chooses to ignore it) does not mean the rest of the Steering Committee are. Did you pool the steering committee member individually ? what basis do you have to claim that just _one person_ think that this legal angle to force a POV is a strawman ? Indeed, there was a meeting that came up with the rough draft of the 2 paragraphs prepared by Florian. There is still no mention of where the responsibility would lay if the perceived risk did happen but as the meeting wrote it, the potential threat should be avoided by using GnuLinux if easily possible. using Linux and/or Gnu does not avoid the alleged risk. Neither own the copyright on icons that would be displayed in a screen-shoot. With GnuLinux screen-shots there is NO risk. It also means the Documentation Team can keep doing what they are already doing = aiming towards professionally consistent documentation. Yes the 'consistent' argument is indeed valid... but the so-called legal risk is a straw man The licensing of GnuLinux tends to be copy-left allowing people to copy and adapt anything they like. By contrast the Windows Eula is very restrictive The Eula could demand that you give away your first born child, that would still not make that the Law. actually the French version of the EULA for Windows 7 Basic, Section 27, spell out clearly that Eula does not trump the Law of the Land. and people in the discussion even highlighted paragraphs that showed that any editing of screen-shots in a way that would make them useful for documentation would be a violation. There was a suggestion earlier in the discussion that if TDF did get clobbered by MS for using screen-shots on their OSes then it could 1. Let MS target individuals that produced the screen-shots or 2. TDF could counter-sue the individuals themselves Apparently we don't even need Microsoft to conduct FUD campaign, we do just fine on our own :-( The post also suggested that TDF should reject any documentation that was produced using non-Windows screen-shots. In the MS vs TomTom case. TomTom were forced to pay substantial damages to MS for saving data. What patent do screen-shoots infringe ? And how did you get access to confidential settlement terms ? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10206988-56.html : Specific financial terms were not disclosed. [snip irrelevant US-patent non-sens ] Yes, everyone is exposed to a large number of unknown risks of a variety of types but this is a known risk that is easy to avoid. Why ask people to beat their head against a wall when they could just walk around the corner? Or just easily not enocurage those
