Hi (Nonsense words? iPad's spellchecker.)
-- Louis Suárez-Potts On 2011-11-18, at 16:12, Ross Gardler <[email protected]> wrote: > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Nov 18, 2011 7:11 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > > ... > >> An OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 maintenance release is *not* going to be an Apache >> release, and not using any Apache code or licenses, I surmise. It will > be on >> the OpenOffice.org 3.3 code base that is available under LGPL. So it is a >> derivative work, but not of Apache-licensed code. > > The press has covered the fact that OpenOffice.org is now at Apache. A > release of OOo that is not from the ASF and not under the Apache license > would be extremely confusing. It could potentially damage both the Apache > and OOo brands. > > Could this be managed by our press people? > > Possibly, but it would require planning. Without a concrete proposal, > approved by the PPMC and trademarks that planning cannot begin to start. By > the time all this is done we'll be pretty close to an Apache release (if > some of the predictions I've read here are to be believed). > > This conversation should have started months ago. I'll note that it did > happen on this list and the PPMC decided to focus on the work need for an > Apache release. This is the first that Team OOo have spoken of these plans. > > Working out a way to do this outside of the normal trademark guidelines is > not going to be easy, especially without a proposal to consider. > I think it's quite manageable. One need only do what we used to do with some releases, viz., more or less downplay it and emphasise that this is a maintenance one. Indeed, we can also use the occasion to point to the *new* and exciting Apache release, and to the nature of the new home. Louis > Ross > >> >> In some sense, that is even more reason, under normal conditions, to deny >> identification of that maintenance result with the OpenOffice.org name. >> >> The tension is that it is closer to an OpenOffice.org 3.3 maintenance > release >> than anything that will ever appear as Apache OpenOffice version-whatever. >> And more timely. The question is under what conditions can this be > allowed to >> be identified as part of an OpenOffice.org 3.3.x progression? >> >> - Dennis >> >> MUSINGS >> >> It seems to me that it is more straightforward to consider that the >> OpenOffice.org line has ended. The only thing possible, now, are > derivatives >> of the LGPL OpenOffice.org code base (such as LibreOffice is already), > other >> existing peers of OpenOffice.org, and the reset that Apache OpenOffice >> represents (and its eventual derivatives too). >> >> In that regard, it would be more appropriate for the proposed 3.3.1 >> maintenance release to be identified as a derivative (e.g., Team > OpenOffice >> 3.3.1). It can make nominative use of OpenOffice.org in regard to it > being a >> maintenance derivative of OpenOffice.org 3.3 and that aspect is settled. >> Other trademark issues can be resolved with Team OpenOffice and, > meanwhile, >> the derivative can be a clean release with splash screens, About dialogs, > and >> other insignia that do not employ Apache trademarks and symbols in any way >> beyond non-confusing nominative usage. There is now no confusion about > the >> roots of the release and its independence from Apache. >> >> On the OpenOffice.org site, it should be possible to identify the > existence of >> this derivative and link to a Team OpenOffice page that indicates its >> availability, solicits funds, or whatever, as a recognized peer. It is >> possible to link to LibreOffice in the same manner, and also other > members of >> OpenOffice.org lineage and, other support for the ODF document format as > well. >> The emergence of Apache OpenOffice and the steps toward incubator > releases can >> also be featured, obviously. >> >> That, apart from complications concerning localizations and other > downstream >> support of the 3.3.1 including user support and bug reporting against the >> release, would seem to be that. There is also the LGPL requirement that > the >> source code of the release be available. >> >> I suspect that there is a desire for closer coupling than that. The > problem, >> of course, is that the Podling can do nothing with the OpenOffice.org 3.3 > LGPL >> code base. And my understanding is that binaries of such code shall not > be >> distributed via Apache sites either. The Apache OpenOffice code base is > not >> usable instead; it is not even being positioned for maintenance release > of an >> OpenOffice.org 3.3.1 equivalent. Probably the only case would be the > unlikely >> possibility of Oracle undertaking such a release (meaning that updates > would >> all be under Oracle SCA though). >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shane Curcuru [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 09:06 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3? >> >> On 2011-11-18 11:16 AM, Stefan Taxhet wrote: >>> Hi Don, all, >>> >>> Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison: >>>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir: >> ...snip... >>>>> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a >>>>> proposal >>>> for what you wish to name your release. >>> >>> Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to >>> release "OpenOffice.org 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development >>> work for future releases. >> ... >> The Apache Open Office PPMC is the only organization that should be >> releasing a software product using just the name "OpenOffice.org". >> Apache trademark policy is clear that third parties are *not* allowed to >> use Apache brands in confusing or infringing manners on software products. >> >> We offer broad guidelines for using a "Powered By" style of naming for >> third party software products that are either built on top of, extend, >> or otherwise use Apache code but add your own code to your product: >> >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products >> >> Note that we'd certainly consider permitting other phrases besides the >> "Powered By" phrase, like "Built Using", etc. (but not "Distribution" or >> "Release" or other similarly non-specific phrases). This allows third >> parties to create their own, independently branded products while still >> allowing third parties to show the obvious relationship to the >> underlying Apache product. >> >> -Shane
