This seems like a much more constructive thread. FWIW, I know the guys at Team OO, well, at least since I first met them in 2005 at OpenOffice.org Conference in Koper, Slovenia. There is passion and continuity here that I think Pavel speaks very eloquently about. And it's worth respecting and supporting, in my view. This is especially true, if they are sincere in stating they will move to exert their efforts as volunteers in the future of Apache OpenOffice, once they are finished with this maintenance release (3.3.1)...
Sure, there have been blunders, but we here in AOO have not been so great with clear communications, so let's face the future, so to speak, together. To that end, why not offer the TeamOO guys a share of the brand, something like 'White Label Office 3.3.1, Powered by OpenOffice.org, now at Apache Software Foundation'? Or, 'White Label Office 3.3.1, Powered by Apache OpenOffice, the new home of OpenOffice.org' So long as their fund raising efforts cease to mis-lead consumers, stating clearly that OpenOffice.org is now under the stewardship of the ASF, we're good. Yes? Stefan, Martin and Goetz, please respond first. What do you think? Best regards, /don harbison On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Donald Whytock <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 2. I then wondered if "white label" had some other, independent > significance. Indeed it does: < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-label_product>. And here too: < > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/white_label>. Oddly, the English phrase is > apparently used in German as well. I don't think the association with > bootleg music is intended though. I will have to install the > German-language version of the release just to see how the identifier is > used within the TOOo release. > > Actually, by that definition, everything under the ASF is "white > label", as it's explicitly legal to rebrand it. That makes "White > Label Office" genuinely ironic. > > Don >
