[Not cross-posting to private@.] -- replying to -- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:20 To: OOo Apache Cc: [email protected]; privateAOO Subject: Re: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:17 AM, jan i <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > -- in reply to -- > > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:[email protected] <javascript:;>] > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 13:37 > > To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > > Subject: Re: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones [ ... ] > > We are in good relationship with the author. The current branding and > > wording of "AndrOpen Office" were approved by the OpenOffice PMC. If any > > changes are needed, feel free to suggest them. It is an unofficial port, > > but it is also as close as possible to OpenOffice. > > > > > > <orcnote> > > My correspondent notices that there are appropriate disclaimers > > on the AndrOpen Office "AOO" web page. > > > > In a follow-up sent to me, I am told that the installed software > > identifies itself as Apache OpenOffice and all of the branding of > > Apache OpenOffice is present. > > > > I think it is important that a fork *not* do that, and that such > > identifications, including any links to support addresses and > > for pinging updates be corrected. (I don't have an answer for > > the on-line help or identification of AndrOpen-specific topics > > on the OpenOffice Forums.) > > </orcnote> Currently we have AndrOffice listed as a "port" -- http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ What this means to me is the 3rd party MUST identify itself as Apache OpenOffice. This is different than a fork. So, they SHOULD NOT re-brand. This goes against our trademark policy. See our distribution page -- http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ But...they should identify that their product is Apache OpenOffice. [ ... ] <orcmid> This page, <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andropenoffice> specifically identifies the product as a *fork* of *Apache OpenOffice* and it disavows any association with Apache OpenOffice or LibreOffice projects. It claims to be the world's first *port* of *OpenOffice*. The same confusion arises here: <https://sites.google.com/site/andropenoffice/home>. There is a separate source code for a few parts, not under ALv2 (MPL or LGPL), apparently for some externals. There is a link for a blog. Although Google Play lists andreopenoffice.com in all of its material, <http://andropenoffice.com> doesn't serve up anything at the moment. Here is a typical example of confusion about this product, <https://www.marshut.net/pyzxp/aoo-for-android-not-worth-the-download.html>. Notice "Apache's Open Office for Android." And folks speak of AOO for Android as if it is the AOO known to us. I think the distinction between a port and a fork is lost here and too fine hair-splitting to be useful. If the Apache OpenOffice project is willing to handle support requests for such a product, so be it. Enjoy the reputation. </orcmid> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
