On 7/1/06, Steven Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Adam Moore wrote: > To reply to the overall thread. > > Is what he's saying on his own personal website actually up to us? He > is in > his right to say whatever he wants. > > That said, if the layout is in a license that doesn't allow other > people to > use it then we should ask that it be removed as the site does not solely > promote the benefits of the OpenOffice.org project. I agree. As far as the content here goes, I think this is rather a silly argument to be having. There is nothing offensive in the Mac portion, although it would be good to include the information that Neo is in alpha stage. It's very clear that he's saying his own personal opinion is that the NeoOffice version is better and easier to install/use than the "official" port. That's certainly a valid view to express. And he's also right when he says it was listed as a port until extremely recently, and the NeoOffice page actually says "it is a free software port of OpenOffice.org to the MacOS X platform." To be honest, I think a lot of this is animosity simply because it's Chad, who in the past has engaged in rather over-the-top commentary and rhetoric. I understand the hostility. (Hell, I had him on my "ignore" list for quite a while.) But we need to get above the personalities and look at this objectively. I don't see anything content-wise to really gripe about. > Chad, your content is your content and you can say whatever you want > despite > how upset Eric tends to get when people even breath the word > neooffice. But > I hope you can understand the confusion that's involved when you use a > site > that looks like OpenOffice.org, but doesn't solely promote it and > actually > promotes other vendors. In any case I would change the look of your > site, > because the OO.org site you copied is not the best looking one. I am > sure > you can certainly do better. Also agreed. The big problem here is that the site originally looked too similar to the main OOo site. That could lead a reasonable person to confuse that site with an official site, disclaimer notwithstanding. The "make a donation" button creates a huge problem, and you could be looking at some significant legal liability on this, Chad. The button has no clear explanation as to where donations go. From the look/feel/content of the site, I would *think* that these donations go to the OpenOffice.org project, but the PayPal page seems to indicate that they are going to you. You can see how this creates a huge potential for fraud and/or claims of fraud.
So now you are going to send the government after me if I don't change the site? This is bullshit. If anyone ever clicked on the make a donation button - I would have deducted my cost and then given the extra to OOo - or used it to promote OOo. I have donated directly, monetarily to OOo and other Open Source projects in the past. And, from a legal standpoint - the disclaimer at the top of the page is plenty, in and of itself, for a defence against anyone who wants to sue me. I have the same button on all of my sites that I put up at my own expense. So far, none of them have been used. But if someone wants to give - they can feel free. That button didn't cost me anything, so I figured why not. Ever heard of "GiveBobaDollar.com"? There is nothing illegal about letting people give you money. But, good god - if you want to sue me because eric got his panties in a wad because I didn't kiss his ass for making a yet-unseen Mac-native version of OpenOffice.org - bring it on. -- - Chad Smith http://www.gimpshop.net/ http://www.whatisopenoffice.org/ http://www.chadwsmith.com/
