On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Manfred A. Reiter <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/7/11 Rob Weir <[email protected]>: >> 2011/7/11 André Schnabel <[email protected]>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir: >>>> >>>> From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start >>>> fresh, but you did not go with a ".org" name. >>> >>> It did not matter that we had the opportunity to start fresh - what really >>> did matter was that we *had to* start fresh. >>> >> >> Regardless of the circumstances of your starting fresh, you opted for >> "LibreOffice" rather than "LibreOffice.org". I was just wondering >> whether that was discussed at all. And if so, why you decided not to >> go with a ".org" branding? >> > > Sorry, i´m not able to follow such an line of argumentation. [1] > or do we start from scratch like LibreOffice? >
Let me break it down: 1) I'm hearing that the ".org" was critical to the OOo community, because it signified that this was a community not a ".com" commercial venture. The ".org" was critical to that aspect of the branding and the entire community supported that. 2) But then when a sizeable portion of that community split off and formed LibreOffice, in part to have it be even more community-led, they didn't adopt that part of the branding. So these two facts appear to be in conflict. I was trying to ascertain whether the TDF/LO guys concerned LibreOffice.org and rejected it for some reason, or whether it was never seriously concerned. Remember, the LO guys are not all that different than the Apache OpenOffice guys. They lived through the same history and saw the same marketing campaigns, etc., wrt OpenOffice.org. But when they moved to a new location, they did not adopt a ".org" name. I understand perfectly the historical reasons why the name OpenOffice.org was chosen. And I can understand the reasons why we don't want to changing branding frequently and with no good reason. Regards, -Rob > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic >
