Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Francois Tigeot wrote: > > In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of > > the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the > > final package containing your modifications). > > Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then. > Hi Francois, all, oh fun, since this is a real corner case - unless nobody distributes binaries from your config, I guess keeping TDF as the vendor would be fine (to make that 100% undisputable, you may want to commit that file to our git repos, and use it as the authoritative source). Once NetBSD starts providing binary packages, things change - then you should use the wording as Andre suggested below: > > Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or > > less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a > > different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest > > some effort to bring the packages to their users. > > Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the > answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name ;-) > The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this > result. > Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said - LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve the wording appreciated. ;) > Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work > in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating > system. > Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured to receive your application as a TDF member. :) Hope this helps, -- Thorsten -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call minutes, Thur May 12th
Le 12/05/11 18:28, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : Hi *, > > Actually only 30 unconfirmed ones (well, those that use the unconfirmed > state). > I don't know who would have the rights to do so, but enforcing > unconfirmed state for non-developer/non-qa people might make sense to > get a better overview. Pardon for butting in, but I have to agree with Christian on this one. Bugzilla is a bit of a PITA for its, errmm, lack of a rigourous QA triage setting. > No, that's not quite correct. OOo had a needmoreinfo keyword, not a > needmoreinfo status - And fdo bugzilla has a NEEDINFO keyword, so > pretty much the same. > The big difference was that only people with special IZ permissions > could promote an issue from unconfirmed state to new state. > > fdo bugzilla even has the NEEDINFO bug status - but that rather is the > final resolution after there was no response after a while (like > closing the issue as worksforme or invalid in OOo's IssueZilla) > > The first step would be to make use of Unconfirmed state, then > QA-volunteers can direct their efforts to those that have not yet been > reviewed. Well said. Does that also mean we could also signal confirmed bugs to the relevant "recognised" developer if there is one ? That's what we could do on QA in OOo. However, I fear my pet module, Base, may find itself in somewhat of a dead end ;-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Hi, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 05:24:19PM +0200, André Schnabel wrote: > > Am 12.05.2011 15:29, schrieb Francois Tigeot: > >... > >I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing > >packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished > >binary packages. > > In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of > the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the > final package containing your modifications). Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then. > Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or > less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a > different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest > some effort to bring the packages to their users. Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name ;-) The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this result. Since I wasn't sure about that, I also wanted to have some opinion from the LibreOffice side. > Ok, this is beyond my expertise. If it was possible to include all > what is neede in our build environment, so that anybody (any member > of TDF) could do exactly what you do - I'd agree, you use "The > Document Foundation" vendor string. I'm not sure of the prerequisites myself. > This would of likely mean some > work (integrating your modifications upstream, testing it, maybe > making it generic ...). But by doing all this you would qualify as > TDF member - and this would be agin for me be an indication to use > "The Document Foundation" vendor string. Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating system. There were many OpenOffice-specific patches in pkgsrc in the past, and they have been integrated in the LibreOffice tree by other people. So far, there is no modification to the source code of LibreOffice in my prototype packaging configuration. > Anyway - at this point I'd like to see the input of other SC-members > who have a better understanding what happens technically. Sure. It would be good to be sure what to do in this case. -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call, Thur May 12th - 15:00 UTC...
Hi, Sophie Gautier wrote on 2011-05-11 17.47: I've already proposed one on the tdf-discuss list, but with absolutely no success, see: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg05948.html Christian has proposed to help me to prepare the session, but with so little enthusiasm, I'm not convince that it's the good time to invest in that now. May be when Litmus will be launch, QA may get more publicity? maybe an announcement to announce@ could help getting new QA volunteers? This might be very much in line with the announcement strategy Italo was writing about. Florian -- Florian Effenberger Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice
Hi, Am 12.05.2011 15:29, schrieb Francois Tigeot: ... So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware" is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF". I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished binary packages. The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is, without any modification. There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's all. It's likely for me to fail giving a good vendor definition in English. Let's have a look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_%28supply_chain%29 "'Vendor' generally applies only to the immediate vendor, or the organization that is paid for the goods, rather than to the original manufacturer or the organization performing the service if it is different from the immediate supplier." In this context you may see TDF as "the original manufacturer" (of the source code) while you are the "immediate supplier" (of the final package containing your modifications). Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark. Should I only use "LibreOffice" ? The wording on the about box would give this : This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates. Which will be a bit weird... Why not use something like "NetBSD pkgsrc Team" - this is more or less what the Linux distributions do. They use "LibreOffice" but a different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest some effort to bring the packages to their users. Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm What I've been doing so far is: - make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get them - add checksums for these files - define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt, etc...) - define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice - specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries, etc...) - tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions available on the developers web page. Ok, this is beyond my expertise. If it was possible to include all what is neede in our build environment, so that anybody (any member of TDF) could do exactly what you do - I'd agree, you use "The Document Foundation" vendor string. This would of likely mean some work (integrating your modifications upstream, testing it, maybe making it generic ...). But by doing all this you would qualify as TDF member - and this would be agin for me be an indication to use "The Document Foundation" vendor string. Anyway - at this point I'd like to see the input of other SC-members who have a better understanding what happens technically. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hi Andre, On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 02:34:50PM +0200, Andre Schnabel wrote: > > Von: Francois Tigeot > > > This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: [...] > > 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified > > form. > > Please note the wording "refer to the LibreOffice software". So this > chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of > the software. Hmm. This is a bit unclear. You mean the vendor would only be the packager, not The Document Foundation ? > There is another paragraph in the policy: > > > Non Permitted Use > > You may not use the marks in the following ways: > > > > 1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the > > origin of its software, or the software's license; > > So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware" > is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF". I'm starting to realize the "vendor" term should be defined: I'm only writing packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished binary packages. The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is, without any modification. There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's all. > Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but > it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark. Should I only use "LibreOffice" ? The wording on the about box would give this : This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates. Which will be a bit weird... > If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing > the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our > project framework. Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm What I've been doing so far is: - make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get them - add checksums for these files - define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt, etc...) - define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice - specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries, etc...) - tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions available on the developers web page. > So the way the vendors act are very different and > this should be reflected in the vendor string. What is a vendor and what is very different here ? This is sounding a bit lame, but nowhere did I see a clarification of the name "vendor", and what it should do or not. Kind Regards, -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hi, just some comments, far from final decision ;) > Von: Francois Tigeot > > This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: > > You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the > following terms): > > 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified > form. Please note the wording "refer to the LibreOffice software". So this chapter is meant for the software itself, not necessarily the vendor of the software. There is another paragraph in the policy: > Non Permitted Use > > You may not use the marks in the following ways: > > 1. In any way likely to cause confusion as to the identity of TDF, the > origin of its software, or the software's license; So in your case, there might be confusion what the "origin of the sofware" is - you are the vendor, but you are not "TDF". Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the "LibreOffice" trademark, but it is questionable to use "The Document Foundation" trademark. If I understand it correctly, the way of building and distributing the pkgsrc version is very different from what we do within our project framework. So the way the vendors act are very different and this should be reflected in the vendor string. regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call, Thur May 12th - 15:00 UTC...
Hi all, I will be missing out this time because of UDS sessions. On Wed, 11 May 2011 16:30:45 +0200 Andras Timar wrote: > + the rdb setup stuff is still too cumbersome (Bjoern) pending > + UNO / ABI breaking changes into a set of wiki page for 4.0 > (Bjoern + Kohei) done, will be blogged about next week. Best Regards from Budapest, Bjoern -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party packages of LibreOffice
Hello, I'm a volunteer about to add some packaging scripts for LibreOffice in pkgsrc [1], and as such, I asked on the IRC developer's channel if there was a problem if I used "The Document Foundation" as a vendor string for the resulting packages. This is an extract of the exchanges I had on this channel: 11:30 < ftigeot> is there a policy on branding / the --with-vendor option ? 11:33 < ftigeot> would there be a problem if I use "The Document Foundation" in my packages ? 11:39 * ftigeot has just found http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy 11:40 < ftigeot> I will use The Document Foundation as vendor string 11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: ho hum; if you are not the document foundation - don't do that. 11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: I think that is the request of the branding guidelines. 11:40 <@mmeeks> ftigeot: TDF is only for TDF produced builds; LibreOffice is for everyone. 11:46 < ftigeot> mmeeks: the webpage says "You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 11:46 < ftigeot> 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. " 11:47 < ftigeot> with a definition of "substantially unmodified" which says the way I intend to package it is basically okay This is an extract of the TradeMark_Policy web page: You may use the Marks without prior written permission (subject to the following terms): 1. To refer to the LibreOffice software in substantially unmodified form. "Substantially unmodified" means built from the source code provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain features by default, translations into other languages, changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the bundling of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions). The packaging scripts I am creating use the unmodified source code of LibreOffice and only change the default configuration options. According to the previously mentionned web page, the usage of "The Document Foundation" trademark is permitted in this case. According to Michael Meeks, it was not the intent of the Foundation to allow the usage of its brand in that case. Could this point be clarified ? If the usage of "The Document Foundation" trademark is not permitted for creating third-party packages, the information on the TradeMark_Policy webpage are contradictory. Thanks in advance for your answers [1] pkgsrc - http://www.pkgsrc.org/ - is a framework for building and packaging third-party software. It was originally created for NetBSD but is now supported on many systems, including Linux, MacOS X and Microsoft Windows (Interix) -- Francois Tigeot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
