Hi Louis,
I also just returned from OOoCon, packing out my bags, thus at the
beginning only with a very short reply:
Yes, I agree that things have gone wrong here, and parts of the reason
might be misreading and misunderstanding, not only on your side, but
also on Johns and my side. We definitely need to be more careful in the
future.
From what I recall, permission to use the OOo logo has been granted,
given that it's unmodified - just as we do with lots of other products.
IIRC, the unmodified logo is used on the mouse and that's also what some
pictures I've seen show. The only problem is the wrong color which to my
knowledge is related to an error at the printer.
Regarding the "official" part of the project, we always had been clear
that we do not have official partner programs and can't offer that.
That just as a very first reply, more to come after I ordered the bag
chaos. ;-)
Florian
All,
Well, I came back from a really wonderful OOoCon to read these review
.... about oomouse, the multibutton mouse that includes OpenOffice.org.
(Like many, I have a Google alert on "openoffice".
What a surprise. oomouse is by no means "official," as the PR seems to
have it. It should not have our branding or any other statement
indicating that it is an "official" OpenOffice.org effort.
Theo is certainly free to claim the facts, that oomouse has been
proposed as an Incubator project and people have voted on it according
to the protocols, which have been written to ensure that we do not end
up having projects without contributors. But the project is not in
Incubator, and even if it were, it would still not be an "official"
OpenOffice.org project, by which Theo seems to understand that to mean a
project endorsed by and representing the OpenOffice.org community.
(Incubator is where we site "experimental" and initial projects.)
To state things clearly, "oomouse" is not an "official" OpenOffice.org
mouse or device, has not been endorsed by OpenOffice.org, and is not
permitted to manipulate the logo as has been done; I do not believe Theo
has been given explicit permission even to use the logo. The logo is not
subject to unauthorized free modification and redeployment. And any
authorized use of it should only be to represent the contents of the
software, that the mouse uses OpenOffice.org, not that the mouse itself
is somehow an OpenOffice.org device and able to use our branding to sell
it. Note, I'm not giving permission to use our logo and mark. That
permission has not, been given, as far as I could tell, and if it had
been, at one point, even by me, I rescind its use, as it has been used
in way that is misleading.
(I would consider allowing the narrow use of "OpenOffice.org (R)" to
indicate that the free software product OpenOffice.org is included in
the (nonfree) mouse.
How did this regrettable confusion come about? My guess is that there
has been a significant misunderstanding and misreading of terms, and
where it is true, that if the project is sited in the Incubator category
the lead can say, "X is in the OpenOffice.org domain" and that "X is an
Incubator project," and explain, I'd hope, what that means, but not
suggest that X is an official OpenOffice.org project or effort and that
the community has somehow engaged in a partnership with Theo's company.
(What's an official project? Well, the closes is our Accepted Projects
category. The projects there tend to be those developing core
functionality of OpenOffice.org or longstanding and important
contributor projects like Marketing. But even here, I doubt many of us
would use the terms I read today.)
I'm not blaming Theo for this confusion. I blame myself for not being
more patient or clear in explaining to him what these terms mean and
what they don't. I guess I'm just so used to them, and am unused to
alternative readings of them. Theo even approached me in Orvieto at a
reception to ask what else needs to be done for oomouse to become an
Incubator Project. As the vote had gone according to the Protocols for
Project Proposal (see
http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/protocols_proposing.html), and there
was some interest, though I have not reviewed how much there was,
nothing much needed to be done on his end, or rather, only the formal
and procedural elements, like I creating the project, he finalizing the
mission statement, I getting his ssh2 key installed, he submitting the
SCA, if relevant, and so on. (None of these procedural steps has yet
been taken, I believe, and there is no "http://oomouse.openoffice.org";;
I have not created it.) But even once those necessary procedures are
accomplished--and the process is explained in the Protocols and Theo
assured me had read them--no Incubator project can claim that it is an
"official" OpenOffice.org project. Clearly, I should have emphasized
these steps to Theo and what they mean and what is meant by "incubator."
And I shall clarify the language of the Protocols so that
misunderstandings, for this is what I believe this is, do not occur again.
I have just now asked Theo to immediately withdraw the misleading PR and
to clarify the situation. I have also informed him to remove our logo
and that he does not have permission to manipulate it. It is not covered
by a free or open license but is proprietary and owned by Sun.
Again, I find this to be a really unfortunate situation very likely
produced by misreadings, misunderstandings, mistakes and my own failure
to monitor things more closely and carefully. I hope this sort of thing
does not happen again and will try to clarify the relevant texts.
And I'm sorry that the mistakes here have surely marred Theo's
announcement.
-louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
