Francois Tigeot wrote: > > In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of > > the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the > > final package containing your modifications). > > Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then. > Hi Francois, all,
oh fun, since this is a real corner case - unless nobody distributes binaries from your config, I guess keeping TDF as the vendor would be fine (to make that 100% undisputable, you may want to commit that file to our git repos, and use it as the authoritative source). Once NetBSD starts providing binary packages, things change - then you should use the wording as Andre suggested below: > > Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or > > less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a > > different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest > > some effort to bring the packages to their users. > > Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the > answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name ;-) > The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this > result. > Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said - LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve the wording appreciated. ;) > Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work > in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating > system. > Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured to receive your application as a TDF member. :) Hope this helps, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] 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
