Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice no longer in Apple store ?
Thanks Sophie ! Le 13/01/2023 à 11:58, sophi a écrit : You don't see it currently because their is a special request for France that we have to comply with first (ANSSI certificate). Once this done, you'll be able to see it :) Christian provided a direct link, but we don't know if it will work either: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/libreoffice/id1630474372 The link will open in a browser just fine, but if I agree to open the link in the default Apple Store app, it displays an error message "App indisponible" "Cette app est actuellement indisponible dans votre pays ou région". So, currently still not visible/available for French-based Apple store. Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice no longer in Apple store ?
Hi Italo, Le 13/01/2023 à 10:18, Italo Vignoli a écrit : Hi Alex, some people see LibreOffice in the Apple Store, and some don't see it (I don't see it, and I see different things from you). We are investigating with Apple. The new version 7.4.4 was approved, and has been uploaded without issues as the previous one, so the behaviour is indeed strange. Thanks for responding. It turns out that I got the update to 7.4.4 automatically (as the previous version was already installed), but for the life of me, I can not get it to appear in the search results, hence my question. Alex
Re: [board-discuss] Report about numbers from Apple App Store
Hi Andreas, Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would the board have these figures, unless the private company distributing the product agreed to provide them, or was under some contractual obligation to do so? Just trying to understand exactly what it is you're trying to say, or prove, as a point? Personally speaking, I'm glad to be able to see how popular LibreOffice via the app store actually is. Alex Le 22 nov. 2022 à 20:16, à 20:16, Andreas Mantke a écrit: >Hi all, > >I asked the board more than three weeks ago, to provide to TDF members >the numbers from the Apple app store for the last years. But I and the >TDF members got no answer from the board about this numbers although I >reminded the board multiple times. > >Although I asked for at least an interim message the board was not able >to provide such a status report. It looks as if there are reasons why >the board is not willing or able to work on such a report and exchange >the data with the TDF members. Thus I make this way of interaction with >the TDF members public here. > >I look forward if the board see reason to change its behavior and >provide the requested report immediately (or at least an interim >message >with a detailed description of the current status of this task). > >Regards, >Andreas > >-- >## Free Software Advocate >## Plone add-on developer >## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog > > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: >board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org >Problems? >https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: >https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ >Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Re: "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" & others on Mac AppStore
Thanks Paolo, will do. Best, Alex Le 8 sept. 2022 à 13:36, à 13:36, Paolo Vecchi a écrit: >Hi Alex, > >we have been looking at the issue in general both in terms of use of >"LibreOffice" and the promotion of LibreOffice based apps without links > >to the relevant licence and source code. > >We have already issued take down notices in the past so we will keep >the >situation monitored and act accordingly. > >Please feel free to forward to me links to other examples so that we >can >complete our list of action items. > >Ciao > >Paolo > > >On 08/09/2022 10:42, Alexander Thurgood wrote: >> Hmm, trawling the App Store shows that there are other similar >looking >> products that also do not reference the underlying FOSS source, code, > >> or licences. >> >> For example (with search string "libre office" : >> >> >> Ace Office:for word processing (Cynoble Technology Limited) - in app >> purchases >> >> GO Office 2021 (Xiaoqin Chen / HNBSoft Team) - 9,99 € >> >> DOC Mate:for MS Office (Cynoble Technology Limited) >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> Le 08/09/2022 à 10:15, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I just wanted to draw the Board's attention to the existence of the >>> products >>> >>> "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Office PDF Suite - for Word, Spreadsheet, Slides & Adobe PDF Docs >>> Editor" >>> >>> >>> These products are being sold respectively for 14,99 € and 39,99 € >on >>> the AppStore, which in and of itself is not a surprise. >>> >>> More surprising to me is that the products look like LibreOffice >from >>> the screenshots that are available (or maybe OpenOffice.org, I >>> haven't done a detailed comparison as I don't have OOo anymore). >>> >>> Again, this wouldn't be a great surprise per se. >>> >>> However, nowhere do I see any recognition in the AppStore blurb >about >>> the product being derived from, or produced with, LibreOffice (or >>> OpenOffice.org) code, nor any mention of a licence, opensource or >>> otherwise. >>> >>> There is a copyright mention, but it glibly states "(C) Word >>> Documents Processor" >>> >>> The only reason I found the product in the first place is because I >>> put the keyword "ODF" in the AppStore search filter and this was one > >>> of the results. >>> >>> Does anyone have any further information about who is behind these >>> products, and if so, why they are failing to recognize the >>> contribution of the FOSS community behind it, the licence(s) under >>> which it is distributed, and seemingly, a link pointing to the >>> availability of the source code ? >>> >>> Is the Board going to do anything about it, and if so, what ? >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >> > >-- >Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors >The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE >Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts >Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
[board-discuss] Re: "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" & others on Mac AppStore
Hmm, trawling the App Store shows that there are other similar looking products that also do not reference the underlying FOSS source, code, or licences. For example (with search string "libre office" : Ace Office:for word processing (Cynoble Technology Limited) - in app purchases GO Office 2021 (Xiaoqin Chen / HNBSoft Team) - 9,99 € DOC Mate:for MS Office (Cynoble Technology Limited) Alex Le 08/09/2022 à 10:15, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : Hi everyone, I just wanted to draw the Board's attention to the existence of the products "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" and "Office PDF Suite - for Word, Spreadsheet, Slides & Adobe PDF Docs Editor" These products are being sold respectively for 14,99 € and 39,99 € on the AppStore, which in and of itself is not a surprise. More surprising to me is that the products look like LibreOffice from the screenshots that are available (or maybe OpenOffice.org, I haven't done a detailed comparison as I don't have OOo anymore). Again, this wouldn't be a great surprise per se. However, nowhere do I see any recognition in the AppStore blurb about the product being derived from, or produced with, LibreOffice (or OpenOffice.org) code, nor any mention of a licence, opensource or otherwise. There is a copyright mention, but it glibly states "(C) Word Documents Processor" The only reason I found the product in the first place is because I put the keyword "ODF" in the AppStore search filter and this was one of the results. Does anyone have any further information about who is behind these products, and if so, why they are failing to recognize the contribution of the FOSS community behind it, the licence(s) under which it is distributed, and seemingly, a link pointing to the availability of the source code ? Is the Board going to do anything about it, and if so, what ? Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] Documents Pro - Write & Edit on Mac AppStore
Hi everyone, I just wanted to draw the Board's attention to the existence of the products "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" and "Office PDF Suite - for Word, Spreadsheet, Slides & Adobe PDF Docs Editor" These products are being sold respectively for 14,99 € and 39,99 € on the AppStore, which in and of itself is not a surprise. More surprising to me is that the products look like LibreOffice from the screenshots that are available (or maybe OpenOffice.org, I haven't done a detailed comparison as I don't have OOo anymore). Again, this wouldn't be a great surprise per se. However, nowhere do I see any recognition in the AppStore blurb about the product being derived from, or produced with, LibreOffice (or OpenOffice.org) code, nor any mention of a licence, opensource or otherwise. There is a copyright mention, but it glibly states "(C) Word Documents Processor" The only reason I found the product in the first place is because I put the keyword "ODF" in the AppStore search filter and this was one of the results. Does anyone have any further information about who is behind these products, and if so, why they are failing to recognize the contribution of the FOSS community behind it, the licence(s) under which it is distributed, and seemingly, a link pointing to the availability of the source code ? Is the Board going to do anything about it, and if so, what ? Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision
Thanks Thorsten 👍 Alex Le mer. 13 juil. 2022 à 23:41, Thorsten Behrens a écrit : > Hi Alex, > > Alexander Thurgood wrote: > > Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner > > Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still > present in > > the amended version ? > > > That clause got added - it wasn't there before. > > > My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer, > > trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was > > felt necessary. > > > In the cited decision, that clause helped to strike down a contract as > invalid, that would have otherwise been harmful to that other > foundation. > > Best, Thorsten > > -- > Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany > Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint >
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision
Hi Florian, Interesting decision by the BGH. Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in the amended version ? If so, how is that now different to the previous situation (other than what follows this sentence with regard to how legal representation by the Board is effected) ? My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer, trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was felt necessary. Alex Le 13/07/2022 à 16:51, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hello, the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-06-14, is now made public in accordance with our statutes. Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order): Ayhan, Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Kendy, Laszlo, Paolo, Thorsten Caolán McNamara wrote on 09.06.22 at 11:00: The German Federal Court of Justice decided (in judgement of 15 April 2021, case number III ZR 139/20, [1]) that the following clause in the statutes of a non-profit foundation effectively hinders third parties to contract to its detriment: “Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”(non-binding translation “The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the purpose of the Foundation.”). In order to protect The Document Foundation this clause therefore should be placed in the statutes [1] in § 8 section 1 which shall then read: “§ 8 Aufgaben des Vorstandes (1) Der Vorstand entscheidet in allen grundsätzlichen Angelegenheiten nach Maßgabe der Satzung in eigener Verantwortung und führt die laufenden Geschäfte der Stiftung. Der Vorstand hat die Stellung eines gesetzlichen Vertreters und vertritt die Stiftung gerichtlich und außergerichtlich. Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt. Die Vertretung der Stiftung erfolgt durch zwei Vorstandsmitglieder, von denen eines der Vorsitzende oder der stellvertretende Vorsitzende sein muss. In dieser Weise kann für bestimmte Geschäfte Einzelbevollmächtigung erteilt werden. Im Innenverhältnis ist der stellvertretende Vorsitzende gehalten, nurbei Verhinderung des Vorsitzenden tätig zu werden.” Non-binding translation [3]: "§ 8 Tasks of the Board of Directors (1) The Board of Directors decides on all fundamental matters on its own authority in accordance with the Articles and conducts the ongoing business of the foundation. The Board of Directors has the status of a legal representative and represents the foundation in and out of court. The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the purpose of the Foundation. The foundation shall be represented by two members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be the chairman or vice-chairman. Individual empowerment may be granted for certain transactions in this way. The vice chairman will take action on internal matters only if the chairman is unavailable." In accordance with § 14 statutes the Board of Directors should make this change to the statutes as it does not affect the foundation’s goals and does not alter the original design of the foundation or facilitates the fulfilment of the foundation’s goals. The change of the statutes only becomes effective upon approval by the Foundation Supervisory Authority. This vote is proposed by all members of the legal subcommittee: Caolán, Emiliano, Paolo. This vote runs 72 hours from now on. [1] https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=69a429d192b32e52aa408ebee0d476d6&nr=119437 [2] German original https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf [3] non-binding translation https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes. Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. One deputy supports the motion. Florian -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree
My ha'penneth below. Surely, the point of TDF is/was to foster community driven contributions by all ? If a languishing codebase was already there, and people are now prepared to update it and have a go at making something of it, shouldn't TDF be seen to be supporting such an initiative ? Reversing the decision to atticize LOOL would not be contrary to that aim, or am I missing something ? Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
It is neither a question of overblowing or "paranoia", (thanks for the gratuitous comment by the way, in tdf#147130), but I raised the issue as to where bugs for Collabora should be reported when it was first released via the AppStore and was told, multiple times, and no less by Michael Meeks himself, to report them in the LO BZ. Seemingly, and without any other form of policy discussion, that has now changed. Where is the due process in that decision ? This is the problem I'm pointing out. Secondarily, accusing people of abusing TDF resources in bug reports (whether they take it personally, or whether it is directed more generally at Collabora) doesn't help the situation IMHO. Alex Le 15/06/2022 à 09:56, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos a écrit : It is sad how you're willing to misinterpret and overblow it, Alex. Collabora Office is a downstream (i.e. derived) project of LibreOffice, and although it is based on the same codebase, it may have its own bugs. It is not fair for unpaid, volunteer triagers to spend time triaging their software's bugs in a bug tracking system pertaining to a different project, that is all. The NOTOURBUG status is meant to indicate that the bug simply needs to be moved to a more appropriate instance, as we do with e.g. snapcraft-related issues, which I triage on Launchpad.net. NOTOUTBUG does *not* mean that your bug is invalid. I am sorry because I am terse in my non-native languages, but really, there is no conspiracy behind it. I translate Collabora's software for free, but as you may note, they host their Weblate platform independently from TDF's -- their Jenkins is similarly separately hosted; their online help site is, too. For GOOD REASON. Adolfo -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
Hi Sophie, Thanks. I have no particular personal illusion that Collabora will fix any of the bugs I've reported against that product, especially if its AppStore offering is to be replaced by the TDF one (or perhaps they are going to compete with each other, I'm not entirely sure ?), so in the end, my objections may be moot. I look forward to following the discussion on this point in due course :-) For the record, as an example of one of the bug reports which does not yet appear to have had the corresponding comments removed: tdf#147337 Quote: "Please: Collabora bugs should be reported to a Collabora bug tracker. The Foundation’s resources should not be abused to report issues in commercial derivates." Being accused of abusing TDF resources after having offered my time since the very beginning of the LO project, and before with SO/OOo/AOO, is not the way to retain volunteers like myself, quite the contrary. In fact, had I been of a less phlegmatic disposition, I would have told you all where to go, in no uncertain terms. Alex Le 14/06/2022 à 21:58, sophi a écrit : Hi Alex, Le 14/06/2022 à 09:52, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : Hello to all, Might I suggest that a discussion be had, either by the Board, or the ESC, and a decision be made of public record, as to where bugs relating to Collabora Productivity are to be reported ? Agreed on the need to have a discussion on that. I have reported a number of bugs against Collabora Productivity in the LibreOffice bugzilla _*over several years*_ (basically since the product was first released via the AppStore). and thanks a lot for your continuous contributions to the project since so many years :) I see now that my reports are being closed as NOTOURBUG, and being told that I should report them to Collabora. Having been consistently told to report them on the LO BZ over these many years, this approach has come both as somewhat of a surprise, and a disappointment. Questions: 1) when was this change decided ? I see nothing of public record ? From what I know, nothing has been decided yet, as you said this is something that we should discuss 2) if the decision wass made to shift responsibility for these back to Collabora, would someone from that entity please indicate where the bugs should now be reported, or whether there is some mechanism in place to automatically transfer the bugs to a corresponding Collabora instance like we did when we moved from Apache BZ ? We have to give time to time (F. Mitterrand for those who are not French ;) I have the distinct and unpleasant impression that the current tensions within the Board have led to an undocumented decision to purge all traces of Collabora bugs from the LO BZ instance without regard for the people who have actually tried to help improve the product by reporting those bugs. Your impression is not the right one. There are no decisions yet on this process. This leads to the unfortunate situation where both the member closing your bugs and you are right or wrong. I would have appreciated there being some kind of public decision making process in this regard, with a means for currently reported bugs to be automatically transferred. For sure there will be and you pointed a very valuable lack of process. Closing them as NOTOURBUG without any due process just smacks of petty revenge actions, and does not bode well for the future wellbeing of the project IMO. In the community there are different understandings and different behaviors. Fortunately we are able to follow-up on almost all of them. But I'm sure the closing of your bugs have nothing to do with a hidden agenda or something like that. Once the settings of the app stores will be done, there will be a lot to decide and discuss and I'm sure (and will work for :) it will happen in a sane way. On your underlying point about the tensions in the board, there are and we are all well aware of them, as is the board. Their has been a two, almost three years break in relations because of the pandemic. This is not easy to work remotely, but it has been even worse for us distributed around the globe. So bear with all of them, with all of us and please, continue to share all your concerns, this is how we will manage to solve problems and grow as a project. Cheers Sophie -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
Hi Jan, For example : tdf#147337 The others (there were at least 2 other instances, for example tdf#147130), all seem to have had similar comments deleted in the interim. Alex Le 14/06/2022 à 19:42, Jan Holesovsky a écrit : Hi Alex, Alexander Thurgood píše v Út 14. 06. 2022 v 09:52 +0200: I have reported a number of bugs against Collabora Productivity in the LibreOffice bugzilla over several years (basically since the product was first released via the AppStore). I see now that my reports are being closed as NOTOURBUG, and being told that I should report them to Collabora. I have no idea what is going on, can you please point me to some bugs where this is happening? Thank you in advance! All the best, Kendy -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
Hello to all, Might I suggest that a discussion be had, either by the Board, or the ESC, and a decision be made of public record, as to where bugs relating to Collabora Productivity are to be reported ? I have reported a number of bugs against Collabora Productivity in the LibreOffice bugzilla _*over several years*_ (basically since the product was first released via the AppStore). I see now that my reports are being closed as NOTOURBUG, and being told that I should report them to Collabora. Having been consistently told to report them on the LO BZ over these many years, this approach has come both as somewhat of a surprise, and a disappointment. Questions: 1) when was this change decided ? I see nothing of public record ? 2) if the decision wass made to shift responsibility for these back to Collabora, would someone from that entity please indicate where the bugs should now be reported, or whether there is some mechanism in place to automatically transfer the bugs to a corresponding Collabora instance like we did when we moved from Apache BZ ? I have the distinct and unpleasant impression that the current tensions within the Board have led to an undocumented decision to purge all traces of Collabora bugs from the LO BZ instance without regard for the people who have actually tried to help improve the product by reporting those bugs. I would have appreciated there being some kind of public decision making process in this regard, with a means for currently reported bugs to be automatically transferred. Closing them as NOTOURBUG without any due process just smacks of petty revenge actions, and does not bode well for the future wellbeing of the project IMO. Thanks, Alex
[board-discuss] Re: New draft of the proposal for in-house developers
Hi all, See my comments inline under Julien's. Le 25/03/2022 à 09:18, Julien Nabet a écrit : Firebird is not the only pb, charts aren't displayed anymore in reports and the whole reports part is dependent on old Java external components. Yes, the issue of charts in reports no longer being displayed is now a very old regression bug. There are also address books pbs: - Mac one (eg : leaks but not only this, Alex may tell more about this I suppose) At least now, a connection to macAB is possible without crashing in the TDF-provided version - haven't tried Collabora's versions yet. There are a couple of other Mac-specific issues (tdf#50626, tdf#64641) with the macOS addressbook. - Thunderbird one can't be used anymore after Mork->Sqlite migration. Yes, that's an issue for everyone - note that system support for Sqlite3 on macOS is included by default in the system, but that doesn't help much if it can't be made to talk to LO over the SDB bridge. This ties in to a lack of built-in support for SQLite in LO in general. It is likely that any such integration would be perceived by users as a very welcome addition (and not just for Moz addressbook support), but my understanding is that this would not be trivial to implement, as it would be basically be like redoing all of the work for Firebird over again, but this time for SQLite. Given that we are already in a mess with Firebird, having a 2nd mess with incomplete SQLite support might not be the best allocation of resources. Much as I hate to say it, _*if*_ resources were to be allocated to Base development, I would much prefer : - fixing old regressions, e.g. the chart bug in the report builder; - making embedded Firebird the functional equivalent of embedded hsqldb - currently, it is like some awkward reject, shivering in the cold and dark - lots of incremental improvements to be made here; - migrating the Java report generator code to C++ - there used to be a native report writer, and it got killed off in favour of Java - however, this would not be a small endeavour. Of course, if the general thinking in the "dev community" is that database front end support is a dead duck, then it seems unlikely that even TDF would engage resources in it. Personally, I would find that incredibly sad, and it would take away my raison d'être for using LO, but I'm not going to be King Canute either. Alex
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi all, I'd just like to comment on the exchange below, from my perspective: Le 10/02/2022 à 15:27, Italo Vignoli a écrit : Then there is a number of donors who ask to stop the recurring donation. Some of them provide a reason, which in some cases is that he wanted to donate once and not on a recurring basis, in some cases lack of money, and in some other because they don't use the software anymore (no bug or other technical reason provided). A small number of donors block donations because the software doesn't fit their needs or is too difficult to use (again, without providing any technical reason or a bug). You should always consider the fact that only a very small number of users is capable of spotting bugs, as for them the software always works as intended. It took me several years to get a marginal understanding of bugs, and I have been working in technology environments since 1982. The majority of users is technically dumb, including people who are supposed to be competent, and this is just a fact. Also, in case it is a concrete problem that stops them donating any longer, please do you have an opportunity to file bugzilla tickets for such cases? Since 2013, not a single user has related stopping donations with bugs, while some donors have related their donation to solving bugs. Were I a recurring business donor, I would do this, in the event I wanted to stop donating and a particular bug or bugs were preventing me from using LibreOffice in my business. Mind you, to be honest, even then, I personally wouldn't have much expectation of the situation changing. One of the reasons I'm not a recurring donor is because I have to ask myself why, as the manager of a small business, I would do that (I do use the "paid" versions from the Apple Store commercial entity though). Do I feel the need for some kind of ROI ? I would argue that, yes, I do. After all, if I am prepared to pay a subscription to a business such as Microsoft for its online product offering, or take out a Google Workspace subscription, then for the amount I pay out for the small number of users in the business, I would argue that contributing a similar monthly amount to the LibreOffice project entitles me to something other than a free download for my OS of choice. This is where the rationale of the well-wishing world of an OSS software foundation and its relation to small business users and potential donors hits the rails of reality hard. Of course, I could give out of the kindness of my heart, and have done in the very distant past - but in business, and especially small business, my outgoings are not ruled by my heart, they are ruled by my bottom line. I would then argue that if I perceived that any donation I might make might actually go toward fixing one of the bugs that affects me, I could see a stronger business case for repeat donations. Obviously, if a bug I reported 10 years ago is still laying around untouched, I might come to the realisation that no one is ever going to fix it and stop donating as a result. Currently, I do not see that. It certainly isn't the case with the commercial entity, whose own business criteria and priorities are clearly not the same as mine. Fair enough, as a business we all have to make money, but then an inevitable decision will be taken to stop using the commercial entity's offering, and possibly, even probably, stop using LibreOffice altogether. I also know we've had the discussion about bug bounties before and gone round and round - without result. I wish there was some alternative that would appeal to people in a situation like the one I find myself in. Currently, none of the ways of financially contributing are appealing, save as a charitable benefactor with no expectations whatsoever. As an individual person, I might well do that - as a business with other more pressing demands on my pocket, not so much. I'm not even sure that there is a solution to the above. Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Thanks Ilmari ! I seem to have missed that ! Will need to try it out again, and apologies for my erroneous statement in that case. Alex Le 13/01/2022 à 21:08, Ilmari Lauhakangas a écrit : On 13.1.2022 21.56, Michael Meeks wrote: On 13/01/2022 12:35, Alexander Thurgood wrote: Endian-ness for embedded Firebird seems to be the elephant in the room here. ODB files made on MacOS can not easily be shared with other OSes/arch. Oh - wow, I didn't know that. Wow - that is awful. That crushed my hopes for a good Firebird based future. Alex: seems the problem existed before Aug 2016, but not anymore. See https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72987#c14 and comment 17 which refer to https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/0cc1ddf2d8d6bc7df74fdd8f8f97381df681177d Quoting from Lionel's comment 17: 'The problem was fixed by saving (within the odb zip structure) firebird data in an endianess-independent format, called the "backup" format, in a file with extension ".fbk".' Ilmari -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi Michael, Thanks for jumping in on this thread, and I appreciate you having taken the time to address my points. Comments inline : Le 12/01/2022 à 21:45, Michael Meeks a écrit : Unfortunately - this tends to dis-aggregate the funding again - so we end up either with too little money on each of many features, or we re-focus back onto the most 'popular' feature / fix work which have significant interest. Probably that doesn't help here. This is far from unique to LibreOffice - large commercial software suffers from this too - as well as having a much higher transaction cost around getting involved & fixing the things you care about. Wander into an under-loved part of Microsoft Office and you will find plenty of rough edges. It is hard to see a way of avoiding that. Oh I quite agree, squaring the circle of financing development/bug fixing and matching users' expectations is a generally thankless task for any organisation. On Mac, there are many intersecting issues here, I'm not fully up-to-date, but we have to use the MPLv2 / Category-b subset for the app-store binaries (I was re-reading their tweaked app-store rules today as it happens). I imagine that Mac sandboxing may cause some headaches, and prolly there are bigger issue around ODBC drivers on Mac: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/671258 It is possible to package an entire JVM - and bundle that - along with all of the related security issues, download size etc. but this creates a large amount of ongoing busy-work that takes resource from other things. Also IIRC the ARM64 / M1 / JVM story is/was far from beautiful. Apple seem to have a proven ability to churn their platform API and even architecture wise rather more quickly than is helpful for us cf. the PPC version. Oh, yes, I still remember the pain involved in transitioning from PPC to Intel. Be that as it may, the only way for my business activity to access the full range of database options is to use the TDF LibreOffice version, and even that is beginning to fail in a number of areas. Hopefully it still works to use the TDF version - and I see very little chance that Base will be 'atticised' in the near future - or that this was even in the scope of this proposal, but perhaps it is wise to discuss that possibility. At least for x86_64, and the ARM version seems almost functional up to the same level , the TDF versions mostly do what we need, even with Java on Arm (Oracle JDK 17). The downside for the commercial offerings then is why would I continue to keep subscribing to the AppStore versions (and contributing financially, however little that might be), if I have to have multiple different versions of what is perceived as the "same" software in order to get work done ? Lest there be some misunderstanding, I also wasn't touting that Base be atticised, far from it, that would be counter-productive for me in particular, my concerns were levelled more at the perceived (by me) risk that apathy, or lack of foresight at the Board level, or whichever circumstances, might lead to the commercially branded offerings of LO in the long run being the only ones available via the AppStore, or indeed anywhere. Of course, discussing strategic orientation of the project is always useful, irrespective of the modules that might be affected. My take from all of this is that I foresee the macOS LibreOffice product becoming solely distributed by one entity in the long term I think that is very unlikely; at least, unless that entity is TDF. Well, at least the above would imply that someone will carry on holding the torch, which is a good thing ! I have been told variously and rather glibly in the past that an SLA would solve the problem - the fact is that the costs and provision of such a SLA from a vendor are neither transparent upfront, nor realistic for a small business with 5 seats. I'm not going to advertise Collabora's Engineering Support packs here, but they have fixed-price per root-cause fixes. That the price reflects the costs & risk there is an unfortunate commercial reality. I understand that, and don't have an issue with the principle at all. As you say, the cost reflects the commercial reality, and that reality doesn't really coincide with small business expenditure, unless they mutualise in some way (which kind of presupposes that they actually know each other, have the same desires, and are prepared to do something about it). So - the board in the past funded some work to try to get Firebird into a state where it could be used as an HSQLDB replacement - which can be shipped on Mac. I think that can provide an alternative today, and quite probably we should put more effort into making it work nicely on Mac (does it?). However migrating HSQLDB to Firebird is far from trivial not least (IIRC) because we have a rather inflexible yacc SQL parser built
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi Paolo, Answers/comments/response inline : Le 12/01/2022 à 14:56, Paolo Vecchi a écrit : *1) Support offering from commercial entities* There isn't much we can do in this area as each company chooses its own business model. Offering a SLA to fix a bug could mean spending a day in fixing and testing the patch as it may mean weeks of development and testing so it isn't that easy to price it for SMEs. Maybe one day, when they'll have enough subscribers to their services, they will be to offer different SLA to SMEs but that's entirely up to them. Just to add that I'm not at all entirely convinced that it is the Board's duty to oversee this part - of course, what a commercial entity decides to offer in terms of business support is entirely up to them - suffice it to say that the economics of the vendor support field clearly seem oriented to large scale deployment. Unfortunately, this completely ignores the fact that in many countries in Europe at least (I can't speak for others), the industrial tissue is made up majoritarily of small businesses or very small businesses, i.e. units with between 1 to 10, or 10 to 30 or so employees, artisans and craftspeople. I don't see any commercial offerings within the current commercial vendor community surrounding the LO project which appear to target that size of business. I can fully understand and appreciate why that might be - client expectations exceeding the ROI of the commercial vendor for the time and effort required to fix X,Y, or Z bug specific to that small business' needs. It is indeed a shame that there are no such offerings presently, but those (V)SMEs still require something, otherwise they may as well just stick to the other existing alternative commercial solutions around, including the proprietary ones. The rationale about having a drive to recruit commercial development/support vendors to the project was that they are/were necessary to enable the LO community and project as a whole to survive. I firmly believe that they still are, but they are nonetheless failing to fill/meet the needs for those small businesses. Perhaps as you say, one day, they will be in a position to offer SLAs adapted to those small enterprises, but 10 years down the line, that hasn't yet materialized, and it seems unlikely to do so IMHO given the current direction that the majority of development efforts from these vendors appears to be taking, i.e. online service offerings as opposed to monolithic product installations. Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure that this is the Board's job to ensure business offerings that meet substantially every business user's needs, but I do feel it worthwhile for the Board to keep an objective eye on where things are going in relation to this point. *2) Market differentiation Community/Commercial offering* In your last email you seem to say that you spotted difference in features between the version you used. Apart from the Java bundling issue (thanks for pointing to a potential solution and to Andras for the explanation) is there anything else that you think we should look at? ODBC connectivity - granted, there is some debate around whether support should be continued at all for ODBC connections, but that would extend to other OSes MySQL connector connectivity Postgresql connector connectivity All 3 of these are either absent (mariadb/postgres) from LibreOffice Vanilla and Collabora Productivity, or present, but broken (ODBC connectivity). To create more clarity I think we should to start building on the internal skills we already have to ensure we can deliver LibreOffice "by TDF" to our community in the app stores regardless of the choices commercial entities may want to make. That would be a possibility, indeed. Talks have been in progress for a while so if you'd like to influence the process please let us know what you think. Another thought is related to the eventual cost of the app on the app stores. TDF already fulfils its duty by making LibreOffice available for free from our web site. The app store is a very convenient way for users to install LibreOffice but the whole process adds extra costs and issues as rules and procedures can change often. Would it be OK for the community to exchange convenience for a TBD monetary contribution, made from the app store and going directly to TDF, which would be equivalent to a donation? Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with this, but it comes with downsides: - the vendor offerings tend to be more conservative in their changes, which is good for the overall stability of the product, whereas some of the initial releases of any new TDF LO version contain catastrophic bugs ; - if a TDF LO version is released with a monetary contribution through an application store, TDF should be wary of raising people's expectations about the kind of product being delivered, and be very clear on the me
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi Andras, LibreOffice from the AppStore is branded Vanilla in the AppStore, but displays as "Community" (e.g. 7.2.4.1 LibreOffice Community). It is not identical to the "Community" version available from TDF. Java functionality is but one part (an important one, but one part nonetheless) of Base functionality. According to this: https://pretagteam.com/question/how-to-bundle-a-java-application-to-a-mac-os-x-app-bundle it would seem that it is indeed possible to include all of the required ressources (i.e. bundling a JRE/JDK) into a product acceptable for inclusion and distribution via the AppStore. Not doing so would then be a decision based on effort/reward for the entity building and distributing the product. Again, which I can understand. However, the Java functionality is but one of the issues. For example, current Collabora releases (whether Vanilla or Productivity) do not include postgresql or mariadb connectors - this is feature deprecation creep, for whatever reason. The reason I raised this topic is for there to be a discussion on how the Board resolves that issue - i.e. the difference in products which appear under similarly confusing names via different outlets, when businesses in particular, are being pushed, by the LO download page itself, towards a product with reduced feature functionality, under the pretext that the business user will help the community at large and obtain some kind of benefit from supporting the business entity. My experience as a business case user shows there to be a mismatch between expectation and reality. If nothing is done, I fear that that gap will only widen. That is the point I feel needs addressing. Alex Le 12/01/2022 à 11:52, Andras Timar a écrit : Hi, On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:09 AM Alexander Thurgood wrote: It seems increasingly obvious that the provider of these commercial versions is not interested in maintaining database functionality and the supporting Java functionality that accompanies the Base module. The reasons for this may be perfectly valid commercially-focussed decisions, and not just linked to the specifics of the AppStore rules. I don't think it's right. As far as I'm concerned, LibreOffice Vanilla is built from the LibreOffice source without any change (hence the name Vanilla). https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ says: 2.4.5 Apps distributed via the Mac App Store have some additional requirements to keep in mind: ... (viii) Apps should run on the currently shipping OS and may not use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g. Java) So as far as I'm concerned, it is not possible to include Java based HSQLDB in LibreOffice Vanilla. Omission of Java is a technical limitation, not a commercially focused decision. Regards, Andras Timar
[board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi *, Sophie suggested that I might want to raise what I perceive as an issue here on this list, that is connected, but not identical, to the issue relating to the Attic question, and the questions around the sidelining of features/functionality in commercially developed and distributed versions of LibreOffice / X entity branded products (X being the commercial entity). As it is not directly related to the Attic question, I have started a new topic. I am a business user of the LibreOffice software product, and for those who know me, or of me, I have been a long time community volunteer active in QA, and previously to that in the documentation projects. My focus within these projects has pretty much always been related to Base, and in line with my business activity, pretty much related to using LibreOffice on macOS. My business is a small one, 4 to 5 machines, and is based essentially on various macOS machines (a combination of Mac minis and Macbook Pro devices). I try, to the extent possible, to use LibreOffice versions made available through the AppStore. On the one hand, it is suggested, on the LibreOffice download web page, to support the business solution providers if we use LibreOffice in a professional or commercial capacity. I believe that my business does this by using the versions provided via the AppStore. Nonetheless, as a paying business of these versions, I am left in a quandary. My business relies on daily use of database interactions, including the use of queries, forms, and to a lesser extent, reports. The business implements a number of different database solutions, ranging from mysql/mariadb/postgres server backends and/or embedded hsqldb (and hopefully when the functionality is finally of an equivalent scope, embedded Firebird). It seems increasingly obvious that the provider of these commercial versions is not interested in maintaining database functionality and the supporting Java functionality that accompanies the Base module. The reasons for this may be perfectly valid commercially-focussed decisions, and not just linked to the specifics of the AppStore rules. Be that as it may, the only way for my business activity to access the full range of database options is to use the TDF LibreOffice version, and even that is beginning to fail in a number of areas. My take from all of this is that I foresee the macOS LibreOffice product becoming solely distributed by one entity in the long term, due to inaction, or passiveness from the Board to allow things to continue as they are. The current commercial entity, due to the business decisions it makes with regard to its own internal code development/maintenance strategy, then gets to choose which functions are maintained and which are deprecated. I have been told variously and rather glibly in the past that an SLA would solve the problem - the fact is that the costs and provision of such a SLA from a vendor are neither transparent upfront, nor realistic for a small business with 5 seats. I also rather doubt that it would be satisfactory for the commercial entity as well. From a business perspective, I may as well just switch to using Office365 or GoogleWorkplace at ca. 50EUR/month for the same 5 seats, and accept the limitations, and/or paying optional extra features that might be necessary to have an equivalent setup. The question I have then for the Board is this : - what is the Board going to do to address the issue of abandonment of features in commercially provided/branded versions of LibreOffice ? If the attic solution is adopted for such abandoned features, does this mean that the TDF LO version for macOS would one day be put into that attic ? My current concern is that it might, or, as appears to be the case, it will be built off the commercial entity's build environment (this ties back to the questions around the LOOL project) and released with that reduced feature set. Clearly, one can't force any commercial entity to do anything with regard to source code that is initially under an open source licence That is, after all, the whole point of open source code. However, the future of the project will be put in jeopardy if the commercial developments take over as the main release channel for any given arch/OS. That is the concern I would like to see addressed. Thank you for listening to me, and apologies in advance if I may have ruffled a few feathers. Alex Thurgood -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 23/08/11 15:25, Simon Phipps a écrit : Hi Simon, >> better still : >> >> "Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy." > > I agree that's more precise English. I am a little concerned it's uncommon > usage that those with English as a second language might consider difficult, > and thus I prefer your earlier suggestion: > >> "Usage is explained in our trademark policy." > > No big issue though, just a preference. I'd welcome your comment. Not wishing to get into a battle on semantics, my personal preference is still the second suggestion, but I would agree with you that non-native English speakers might find the less archaic wording of my first suggestion easier to grasp from the outset. Ultimately, choose whatever everyone feels comfortable with. Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Second thoughts, > subject to international copyright laws. Uses are explained our > trademark policy. > better still : "Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy." Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, > > Alex, how does that sound from a legal point of view? Is it strong enough? > "Usage is explained in our trademark policy." Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 20/08/11 11:34, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, > "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of > their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks > in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are subject > to international copyright laws. The use of these therefore are subject > to our trademark policy." I would only change the last sentence to : "The use of these intellectual property rights as a whole is laid out in our trademark policy." Not having looked at the trademark policy in a while or followed the discussions, I assume that the logos as graphical elements protectable by copyright are also covered therein ? Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 31/07/11 16:53, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, > hmmm... do I get it right that not mentioning any trademark protection > is better than mentioning that a mark is protected, but not naming the > registrant? The easiest way around such a situation in the present state of...flux, would be to indicate that : "LibreOffice is a registered trademark of its corresponding registered owner or is in actual use as a trademark in one or more countries." In this way, you avoid having to worry about whether or not you have designated the rightful owner, but by the same token have recognised that the trademark rights exist. That's not to say that such an all inclusive reference might not bump against on some local legislative or regulatory requirement somewhere in the world, but it is a fairly comprehensive start :-) Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 31/07/11 10:21, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, > legally, the German association "Freies Office Deutschland e.V." is the > current trademark holder, as TDF doesn't exist as legal entity yet. Ideally then, reference should be made to the FOD Verein and not to TDF. Not mentioning the name of the rights holder at all opens the person who publicises such a mark on their product to allegations of fraud, trademark infringement, and false assertion of rights (jurisdiction dependent as always of course), including via third parties (i.e. it doesn't require TDF to take positive action). Trademark law can be a real pain at times :-)). In general, this is relatively low risk stuff. Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 30/07/11 18:39, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian > > I received a trademark use request from an extension vendor. For > confidentiality reasons (the product has not yet been launched), I'll > remove the name, but the request is as follows: > > Back of the product box: > LibreOffice is a registered trademark of The Document Foundation. > Assuming that the TM _is_ actually registered in the name of TDF, then yes, this is OK. Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 09/07/11 23:26, Bernhard Dippold a écrit : Hi all, Someone suggested I sling in some caselaw or other references on whether copyright protection is available for UIs : US Just one caselaw review : http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/crind.htm Europe In European Union Court of Justice Case C-393/09 : http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/03/24/protection-of-guis-graphical-user-interfaces-some-comments-about-the-ecj-%E2%80%98s-preliminary-ruling-in-bsa-v-ministervo-kultury/ involving the BSA against the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic relating tp television broadcasting of user interface. What the latter ruling states is that copyright is not available under the Computer Program Copyright Directive 91/250/EEC, as that is intended to protect code per se. However, copyright is available for UIs under the more general Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, providing that they meet the criteria for awarding copyright, i.e. originality, author's own work, etc. So to all those naysayers who think that no-one sues anyone else over UI elements - wake up, and take stock. Am I paranoid ? No, but people do get sued. Do I represent the BSA ? No, but I know "peers" that do, and believe me, love it or hate it, the BSA do sue people. Please, by all means, get an opinion, hell, get several opinions, most likely they will all be as different as there are different states in the world. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 09/07/11 23:32, Simon Phipps a écrit : > As someone who also has worked in this field for the best part of a decade, > and given the advice Alex has already provided appears extreme, I would > suggest also seeking counsel from another specialist if TDF wishes to pursue > this path, perhaps from SFLC. > An excellent suggestion. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 08/07/11 12:01, David Nelson a écrit : David, How much clearer can this page be : http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/IntellectualProperty/Permissions/Default.aspx "You may only copy, modify, distribute, display, license, or sell the content if you are granted explicit permission within the End-User License Agreement (EULA) or License Terms that accompany the content or are provided in the following guidelines. __For more information, consult your copyright attorney.__" "Fonts Use the free Font properties extension to determine who owns a font that Microsoft distributes. A number of Microsoft fonts may be licensed from Ascender Corporation. These include Verdana, Georgia, Comic Sans MS, Microsoft Sans Serif, Nina, Tahoma, Wingdings, Webdings, and Trebuchet MS. For more information regarding fonts, and for links to font vendors, visit the Microsoft Typography Web site." "Microsoft Icons Microsoft product icons are the thumbnail-sized images indicating that a Microsoft product has been installed on your operating system. Icons may not be used in advertising, in books and other printed matter, on clothing or other promotional items, in online and Internet locations, in software applications, in television programs, in commercials, in movies, or on videotape. You may use Microsoft product icons in training manuals or documentation about a Microsoft product. The use of the icon must be specific to the function of the icon within the Microsoft software. The icon may not be used as a graphical or design element. Icons cannot be modified or altered and must appear as they would within the Microsoft software. Microsoft makes certain icons available to developers. (Find more information about how to buy Microsoft developer products.) If you have licensed a Microsoft development tool, review the redistributable section of the EULA to learn which Microsoft properties may be redistributed by licensees." "Screen Shots You may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released. You may use other screen shots in advertising, in documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videotapes, or on Web sites, provided that, in addition to the requirements above, you: Do not alter the screen shot except to resize it. Do not use portions of screen shots. Do not include screen shots in your product user interface. Do not use screen shots that contain third-party content. Do not use screen shots that contain an image of an identifiable individual." This paragraph is dependent on the preceding limitations of use and authorisations, or a form of exception if you prefer. As an exception to the general rule, it is always construed narrowly, and indeed this paragraph specifically mentions "__in addition__ to the requirements above". I make part of my living out of representing IP rights holders in legal actions against those who do not respect those rights, but also defending those who happen to be on receiving end when the boot is on the other foot. Fortunately, I represent none of the parties here, neither TDF, Microsoft, Apple or any of the Linux distribs so I would like to believe I am fairly independent. For me, Microsoft have pretty much summed it up in their last sentence of the first paragraph I posted : "For more information, consult your copyright attorney." It is a no-brainer : either ask in MS writing, consult an attorney for each territory of interest (expensive no doubt, and possibly unsatisfactory, with fairly heterogeneous answers), or just plain don't use MS's stuff. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 06/07/11 11:48, Tom Davies a écrit : Everyone : To me, the point has more to do with SC communication. Once again, a topic has raised its head that I considered "dealt with", and now it is back on the table. Although not a member of the SC, the question of the legality of screenshot usage and associated platforms for making them has become important enough IMO for a decision to be clearly stated by the SC, so I am submitting this question as a topic for discussion to you all. If there is already a decision somewhere in the archives, or on the wiki, could someone from the SC please point us to it ? If not, please consider this question for discussion as quickly as possible and issue a statement. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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] Quo Vadis TDF Development - paid support based model ?
Hi Thorsten, all, Le 18/05/11 10:01, Thorsten Behrens a écrit : > TDF's mission surely also includes catering for 'business' users. > Our ability to perform that will grow over time (remember, we're > starting this organisation from scratch) - and encouraging people > who can afford it to get paid support from one of our member > companies helps the project a lot. > Yes, and I was not questioning the fact that TDF _needs_ to cater to businesses, in whichever way it may decide to do so, merely the absence of a clear public statement to that effect. If TDF want normal "run of the mill" businesses to adhere to the using/supporting of LibreOffice, then they require clear direction. As Sophie has mentioned, clear communication is vital, and I just don't see that at present (or perhaps I haven't looked hard enough). > Now, for your notion that you don't have a say - in fact you have, > as a member of the project, you can collectively influence many more > things than there was ever possible at OOo - including how money is > spent in the future. Please *do* feel encouraged to apply for > membership - if you want to affect change, that's the best advice I > can give. Actually, I have never doubted that, and my words certainly weren't intended to be taken that way. If I were not to have a say at all, I would probably already have been banned from the lists as a trouble-maker ;-) As to membership, well I have now been invited to apply by at least 4 different people within TDF - I feel very flattered :-)) However, I am a bit of a stickler for the "what am I getting myself into ?" question (sorry, its a lawyer thing) : committing oneself to the project without knowing all the rules (both spoken/written and unspoken/unwritten - in fact there should never be unspoken rules in a truly open project) upfront is not something I do lightly. Again, it all comes down to communication. All of us "oldies" know how difficult communication was with Sun at times, and I am sincerely concerned that "we" are heading down the same road. For a project with its current past history not to have learned from that past history that good communication is an overriding factor when so many different "cultures (both linguistic, commercial and technical" are involved is, for me personally at least, a major cause for concern. But I hear your reply already : "Then become a member and help change things" ;-) I might just do that. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Quo Vadis TDF Development - paid support based model ?
Hi all, A recent discussion on the developer list has brought me to ask myself where, if anywhere, there is a positive statement or decision on development strategy that implies or explicitly mentions that "enterprise stability" can/will only be expected in the LibreOffice product if companies / administrations / large user bases buy support contracts ? This has repercussions for me to the extent that it is not how I envisaged, or indeed, how I understood, the project to be grounded. It shows what I feel is a certain lack of consideration for those people from business communities who have contributed in the past to improving the product (in its largest sense, i.e. from OOo times), creating documentation, bug hunting and triaging, and who probably helped with the donations to create the foundation in the first place. Any pointers would be useful. TIA, Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call, Thur May 12th - 15:00 UTC...
Le 16/05/11 19:31, Bjoern Michaelsen a écrit : Hi Bjoern, > Looking at the bug shows: > - It did not only happen with Ubuntus build. > - It did not only happen on Ubuntu. > - It does not happen in Libreoffice 3.3.2 on Natty even for people > reporting it before. 3.3.2 on Natty is the first official release. > - Nobody could provide any hint on how to repoduce or even provoke the > bug. > When I said old, I meant "Happened to the firm I was in 5 or 6 years ago" so I'm not targeting Ubuntu specifically ;-) And, to answer Michael, we did have a support contract at the time via an external consulting company, but nonetheless the issue could not be resolved. It went away with a LTS upgrade !! > => The bug could be very well triggered by some bug or misconfiguration > outside of LibreOffice and thus be not reproducable at all on developer > machines. Allocating developer resources under these circumstances > on such an untriaged Heisenbug is pure waste of time. It needs way more > triage by people seeing the bug. The problem is how to get people to signal things like that. Something that affects a pool of users reported by only one person, say on the Ubuntu bug reporting system, will on the whole only be considered as a single person bug report... And I'll not waffle on any longer in this thread :-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call, Thur May 12th - 15:00 UTC...
Le 16/05/11 11:25, Petr Mladek a écrit : > >> Bug 36991 - crash when duplicating draw page with linked wmf pictures >> I think a crash in a basic function that might affect many users is not >> acceptable. > > I agree that it is annoying and we should fix it ASAP. It seems to > behave very randomly. There might be more similar crashes... > > Well, I think that it need not block the 3.4.0 release. It is reported > with linked pictures but pictures are not linked by default. Also I am > not able to reproduce this when I link the picture only once. I couldn't reproduce this either on Mac, but this may be due to having other image management libraries I've installed on my system via ports or just OSX's general image handling. For me, it was stable. >> Bug 36306 - LibreOffice 3.4 beta1 crash in Letter Wizard >> I think a crash in a basic function that might affect many users is not >> acceptable. But I am not sure how many users really use that wizard. > > I agree that it is annoying. Well, as you say, we are not sure how many > users need this functionality. I think that it is not a core function > and need not be working in 3.4.0. This doesn't crash on OOo 3.4-dev, even though the initial dialog window was also partially off screen. So its a bit more than annoying IMHO. Of course, I'm sounding my own trumpet here, as I do actually write mailmerge letters in different languages for my business activities. > >> Bug 33915 - user settings get lost after several restarts >> Very Very annoying, but I can't tell how many users might be affected. > > Happened also with LO-3.3.0 => old => can't block 3.4.0 Reminds me of an old bug that the Ubuntu versions used to have, very disconcerting when you have a pool of users who keep ringing you up and telling you that your latest rollout made all their user settings disappear, and really doesn't make the product look professional !! Again, putting the resources down to fixing things like this all boils down to the question of how serious the Foundation is about making LibO an appealing option to businesses. Not an easy question to answer give the youth of the project at the moment. > >> Bug 34184 - Task: Make E-mail MAILMERGE usable. >> Since LibO project has started tis feature does not work, and with every >> new final release fix for the bugs gets shifted to the next and to the >> next and ... . But it seems I'm the only one using email-mailmerge? > > Happened also with LO-3.3.0 => old => can't block 3.4.0 > No, not the only one by far, this is also one of my pet disappointments, and I know for certain on the French users lists that many administrations (schools, town halls, etc) and software prescribers that currently use or recommend OOo are warning those users and clients to stay away from LibO until the mailmerge issues get fixed reliably. But then, I can't speak for any other community. In administrations, mailmerge is used massively, even if it just for preparing pupils' school marks, or reminders about all sorts of things from club membership payments to a change of day in putting out the trash. It is something that with Microsoft Office does not require a great deal of sophistication. It took years to bring OOo to a reasonably usable state, and now it is "seemingly" hopelessly broken in LibO, almost "overnight" in a lot of people's eyes. This is the biggest issue with regard to mailmerge, the visible negative impact on the community of users that followed over from OOo or would like to. Obviously, there appears to be a difference in how the developers within the corporate participants of the LibO project see this and how the users in certain communities see it. Until that difference can be reconciled, we will be stuck in mailmerge noman's land. Alex PS: Sorry to all for hijacking this thread. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call minutes, Thur May 12th
Le 12/05/11 18:28, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : Hi *, > > Actually only 30 unconfirmed ones (well, those that use the unconfirmed > state). > I don't know who would have the rights to do so, but enforcing > unconfirmed state for non-developer/non-qa people might make sense to > get a better overview. Pardon for butting in, but I have to agree with Christian on this one. Bugzilla is a bit of a PITA for its, errmm, lack of a rigourous QA triage setting. > No, that's not quite correct. OOo had a needmoreinfo keyword, not a > needmoreinfo status - And fdo bugzilla has a NEEDINFO keyword, so > pretty much the same. > The big difference was that only people with special IZ permissions > could promote an issue from unconfirmed state to new state. > > fdo bugzilla even has the NEEDINFO bug status - but that rather is the > final resolution after there was no response after a while (like > closing the issue as worksforme or invalid in OOo's IssueZilla) > > The first step would be to make use of Unconfirmed state, then > QA-volunteers can direct their efforts to those that have not yet been > reviewed. Well said. Does that also mean we could also signal confirmed bugs to the relevant "recognised" developer if there is one ? That's what we could do on QA in OOo. However, I fear my pet module, Base, may find itself in somewhat of a dead end ;-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org 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
[steering-discuss] Re: Fwd: Fundraising events
Le 10/03/11 13:40, sophie a écrit : Hi all, > I've proposed that we write a charter with local associations, where > when they earn money using our name, a percentage of this revenue is > reversed to TDF. It could be a small amount for basis and if more, done > as a donation. However it seems that nobody agree with this, but imho > that would prevent TDF having less money that some local associations or > strange things like the FR group sponsoring Alexandro's material ;) One must be careful here that the Foundation does not exceed its statutory and legal obligations - collecting a percentage of monies raised by local associations for the use of TDF/LIbO trademarks could be seen as trademark licensing in some jurisdictions, which may or may not be permitted under law. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Approval of our Trademark Policy
Le 04/03/11 01:00, drew a écrit : Hi Drew, > Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or > not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG > with 'registered trademark", while on the trademark policy page it seems > that maybe it is just a "tm" that is appropriate at this time. > From a legal point of view, if the trademark is not actually registered then it can only be "TM" - note here that "filed" is not the same as registered. Considering that in the US registration takes anything from 12 months to 3 years on average, at least for the US it will have to be "TM". It is, by the way, an offence to use (R) or registered trademark in the US if the trademark is not actually registered. As for other countries, well the European Union trademark registration proceedings take approximately a year, if there are no setbacks, such as objections from the Examiner, oppositions by third parties, etc, so again, one is looking at registration proceedings lasting between 1 to 2 years. Other countries will have similar time schedules depending on the degree to which the trademark application is examined. In France, for example, it can take less than a year, approximately 6 to 8 months if all goes smoothly. Suffice it to say that it is unlikely that there are many "registered" "LibreOffice" trademarks around at the moment, in which case one should put "TM". The "TM" labelling is only really significant for the US anyway, nearly all other countries have a system based on first-come, first-served registration, whereas the US has both a system of inter-state commerce recognition of use of a trademark, and a federal registration system. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 28/01/11 13:48, Michael Meeks a écrit :
Hi,
> Good point; 'business' is confusing, I switched it to company name to
> make it more comprehensible:
>
> "Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name or company name without
> explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited."
This will be virtually unenforcible. For it to be enforcible, you would
have to prove, at a minimun, that :
1) TDF has a trademark right in the country in question. AFAIK, TDF is
still very, very far from worldwide trademark coverage.
2) The use of a word or sign containing LibreOffice prevents the
registration of a company name or a domain name in the territory where
the issue is raised. Of course, one can always go to UDRP for domain
names, which is cheaper than a court case on the whole, but it still
costs money and you have to show a demonstration of recognisable harm or
intent to confuse. In "honest Joe" good faith domain name registrations
such as those declared by amateur groups, or volunteers, or just
associations, that will be a particularly hard act to follow.
3) in each case, the trademark is valid.
The validity question in point 3 is an important one. The use of
"office" as part of a trademark to designate the actual or future goods
and products/services is not at all original with regard to productivity
software, and this part of the trademark is almost certainly devoid of
any protection. In the US, if the trademark LibreOffice has been filed,
the trademark office may require specific disclaiming of the "office"
part of the mark.
A quick search of the USPTO database in international class 9 (covering
computer programs and software) gives at least the following results :
- LIBREACCESS
- LIBREPUBLISH
- LIBREMARKET
- LIBRE DESIGN ("Design" is specifically disclaimed)
- LIBRESTREAM
- LIBREDIGITAL
I won't even bother to go near the "OFFICE" ones, well maybe this one,
because it is kind of ironic :
- FREEOFFICE (owned by Softmaker Software GmbH, who happen to
commercialize, in Europe at least, an office suite by the name of
Softmaker Office) - that should be interesting when either the Examiners
or the attorneys wake up.
Alex
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 28/01/11 13:47, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi Michael, > I suppose they need permission :-) > With the caveat of the "fair use" exception, which does not require permission. The notion of "fair use" varies from country to country. In some countries, you are even allowed to use registered trademarks in parodied form, without impugning the TM holder' rights. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 28/01/11 13:47, Michael Meeks a écrit : I might add that "non-commercial" use of a trademark is also, in some jurisdictions, not considered to be an activity that infringes a trademark holder's rights. One of the basic rules is whether there is a risk of confusion in the buying public's mind / eye between the alleged infringing use and the legitimate use by the trademark right holder. Since purely not for profit sites are not commercially driven, there is an argument, upheld in some jurisdictions, that excludes trademark infringement for that kind of use, irrespective of how close it appears to get to the right holder's activities (as long as it remains non-commercial). Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 14/01/11 15:46, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :
Hi again,
"- Accompanying Symbol: The first or most prominent mention of a TDF
Trademark should be accompanied by a symbol indicating whether the mark
is a registered trademark ("®") or an unregistered trademark ("™"). "
How is anyone to know which marks are registered or unregistered ? I
assume that this will be made apparent somewhere on the TDF or
LibreOffice website ?
Alex
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 21/01/11 15:21, Michael Meeks a écrit : Hi all, > > There is some concern about the lack of clarity on whether > incorporating libreoffice (or other marks) into a domain name > is allowed - this is an area people often want to tread on, and > we should probably directly address it. > > Similarly - it does not mention including 'libreoffice' into a > business name - I think we should simply prohibit that. > > So I suggest we add a clarification of both of these to the end of the > "Non permitted use section". > > "Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name, or business name >without explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited." Whilst I believe that this is a good idea, from a practical application of trademark law standpoint, it is not necessarily a valid condition, because not all jurisdictions give deference to trademarks over domain names. Just something to be aware of. So say I decide to file a FQDN called f**klibreoffficeubstrds in some obscure territory's jurisdiction, and which most would consider to be disparaging at the least and offensive at the worst, then you might find you'll have a hard time being able to do anything about it. > Finally - I just realised that I'd like the "substantially unmodified" > clause to include a few more bundling bits: so > > "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code >provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including >but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain >features by default, translations into other languages, changes >required for compatibility with a particular operating system > - distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches)." > + distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the bundling > + of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions) > Seems fair enough to me. The current clause is a bit waffly and this adds clarity. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Update on the Foundation
Hi Charles, Le 03/01/11 17:00, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : > Yes, you get the idea. Although I would certainly not dismiss donations > of 500, 1000, 2000 euros. They do make a real difference. > If the Stiftung is not yet in existence, how, in concrete terms, is the "whip around" done ? By donating to OOoDEV ? Some kind of pledge system? I'm interested in the practicalities rather than the theory, because I have issues donating money to a non-profit that is not the one for which the money is intended - no offense intended against OOoDEV mind you, which has handled things fine as far as I can tell to date. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
