Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> Jonathon Blake answered this question as I would have (but in more detail): it's
> standard legal boilerplate text. We should keep it.
Well, Janet didn't say "let's remove it", but instead suggested that we say "respective owners" instead of "legitimate owners".
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant "keep the original wording" rather than change it as Janet suggested.
I guess that if we start referring to different publications with any frequency, some naming convention will automatically form.
Here's another alternative. The UG version would match the version of OOo, but
we could have revisions:
* User Guide version 2.0 * User Guide version 2.0 - 1st revision * User Guide version 2.0 - 2nd revision
etc.
How's that? That's what books do, right?
Well.... working on the principle of "if someone can misunderstand it, they will", that could lead some readers to believe the book revision is somehow related to software revisions, not understanding the difference between "version 2.0" (referring to OOo) and "1st revision" (referring to the book).
At the moment I don't see any reason why we need a "book version" (and several reasons why it might be confusing), but I may well be missing something on the "pro" side. I'll have to think about this a bit more, and I hope that Janet and others will have something to say on the subject.
Regards, Jean
