Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 03/12/2014 Simon Phipps wrote: I just spoke with the owner of the Apple developer account for the app. He tells me it had been used by a subcontractor, that it was unrelated to his real business (online TV) and that he would immediately remove the app from the iTunes store now he's seen what they did. Thanks, if that was serious (on his side, of course) this will indeed solve the problem. I see the app is no longer available at the link I posted earlier; this of course does not guarantee that it won't resurface at a different URL, but it solves the immediate problem. It looks like that with this and with the (still pending, but with no objections so far) consensus on rejecting Quick Office Pro messages with an appropriate explanation, we are well-equipped to solve the issue. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
Am 12/03/2014 02:34 AM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Simon Phippssi...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rob Weirr...@robweir.com wrote:
Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server
level? Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming
from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage
where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro? If we
do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right?
I doubt there will be a common referrer as the links on
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8
just point to openoffice.org and the users getting through seem to be smart
enough to find a contact address. But if there was a way to do that it
would be even better, yes.
I understand. It should be possible to detect and redirect all
incoming website requests that originate from
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512
This could be done preferably at the Apache HTTP Server level, or
(less reliably) on our home page with a Javascript redirect:
script
if ( window.document.referrer.indexOf(
/itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512 ) != -1 ) {
location.href = http://www.openoffice.org/new-special-page.html;;
}
/script
ah, good idea as long as the app is still in the store - or at least the
wrong link.
I can take care of this as soon as SVN is working again.
Marcus
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 12/02/2014 05:34 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server
level? Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming
from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage
where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro? If we
do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right?
I doubt there will be a common referrer as the links on
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8
just point to openoffice.org and the users getting through seem to be smart
enough to find a contact address. But if there was a way to do that it
would be even better, yes.
I understand. It should be possible to detect and redirect all
incoming website requests that originate from
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512
This could be done preferably at the Apache HTTP Server level, or
(less reliably) on our home page with a Javascript redirect:
script
if ( window.document.referrer.indexOf(
/itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512 ) != -1 ) {
location.href = http://www.openoffice.org/new-special-page.html;;
}
/script
Regards,
-Rob
I'm strongly supportive of something like this in the interim. Google
owns the name and it's clear Lee Elman has (at least) violated some
kind of trademark rules/uses. We should report this to both Google and
Apple (iTunes) at this point.
The fact that Lee Elman has decided www.openoffice.org is the Lee Elman
Web Site is directly of concern to us.
If Rob feels so inclined, I'm good with Lazy Consensus for the script
addition and whatever new-special-page.html might contain.
S.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
--
-
MzK
One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth
to a dancing star.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: I just spoke with the owner of the Apple developer account for the app. He tells me it had been used by a subcontractor, that it was unrelated to his real business (online TV) and that he would immediately remove the app from the iTunes store now he's seen what they did. Following up: The app causing the unwanted e-mail traffic has now been removed from the App Store (as have most of the other scams I mentioned in my InfoWorld article). S.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
Marcus wrote: In general +1. But I would like to see the complete text that should be used as general message when rejecting mails. @Andrea: Can you state this in a separate paragraph? Something like http://markmail.org/message/vsonyy6jhnrgn7uq (with the obvious minor adjustments): --- That app claims to come from OpenOffice, but this is not true. It is totally unrelated to the OpenOffice project http://openoffice.org ; please report the app to the App Store. And of course we can't help you since this mailing list is for volunteer support for OpenOffice users, sorry. --- And it shouldn't be limited to users@ but should be used for all - also for dev@. So far we've seen the problem on the users@ list only, but I agree to apply it to dev@ too (messages will be even more off-topic here). Other solutions, like the redirect based on the HTTP referrer, can proceed in parallel, and while they are probably overkill for this case they are a powerful tool which would be nice to have. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 3 Dec 2014, at 9:15 am, Louis Suárez-Potts lui...@gmail.com wrote: On 02 Dec2014, at 21:05, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/12/14 00:01, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: The ® name for them is “Quickoffice®-Pro”. That is the name of the software. I've seen three or four different names for the vendor. Who then is getting this money? Scammers. Well, maybe. Recall that Google owns Quickoffice. They distribute their incorporated version as Google Docs, even for iOS. It is possible that the Lee Elman I’ve contacted via LinkedIn is a “scammer.” But also perhaps not. Apple’s iTunes Store is, as I noted, hardly the garden of sanity one might hope to find. I’m willing to bet a lot of money that this is a scammer. There are literally hundreds of rip-off apps on the app store re-using common names, some even being exact copies of other apps which are stripped of their DRM and re-signed using the scammer’s certificate. I myself have been burnt by this, both by people selling copies of UX Write under different names, and also using the UX Write name to sell a different app (which was a copy of Dataviz’s Documents to Go). Apple don’t care. You have to put in a *lot* of effort for them to take down or fix a case of infringement (in my case this meant personally meeting with app store representatives at WWDC). Usually they’ll just refer you to their legal department, who will then ask you to resolve the issue directly with the developer. And in this case it’s not even the OpenOffice trademark being violated - IANAL, but I would assume an incorrect link wouldn’t qualify. Probably the only viable way to get it changed is to submit a request to http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstorenotices/ http://www.apple.com/legal/internet-services/itunes/appstorenotices/ and with luck they will give you the email address of the person who uploaded it. Then that person can be contacted and asked to change the link (which shouldn’t make any difference to them as they can continue to make money off of the QuickOffice trademark). The actual trademark violation is a separate issue, and one for Google/Apple to deal with. -- Dr. Peter M. Kelly kelly...@gmail.com http://www.kellypmk.net/ PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should be contacting Quick Office Pro about changing their support information if we haven't already. I just spoke with the owner of the Apple developer account for the app. He tells me it had been used by a subcontractor, that it was unrelated to his real business (online TV) and that he would immediately remove the app from the iTunes store now he's seen what they did. S.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
+1 and +1 on Kay's idea. 2014-12-03 0:23 GMT+01:00 Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com: On 12/02/2014 02:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: There's an app for Apple devices called Quick Office Pro. It is totally unrelated to OpenOffice project and code. A link to it is https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8 They link to http://openoffice.org for user support. This results in many off-topic requests to the users list and in damage for the OpenOffice reputation; also, the app is not free, so they ask for refund and confuse our users. (We are trying, by the way, to get that app removed from the store, but it's a parallel course of action). Moderators on the users list have been considering to reject messages related to Quick Office Pro and to accompany rejection with a message explaining that OpenOffice has nothing (at a project level or code level) to do with Quick Office Pro, that the Quick Office Pro developers are abusing our support channels and that users should report the app to the Store where they bought it. Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above. This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion. A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective. If you have very, very valid concerns against this please speak up; otherwise I recommend that you realize that we virtually anything else is more important than Quick Office Pro, so if you, unlike me, have a lot of free time, you can spend it in more productive ways! Regards, Andrea. +1 on this proposal. And... I think we should be contacting Quick Office Pro about changing their support information if we haven't already. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. -- Friedrich Nietzsche - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 12/02/2014 02:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: There's an app for Apple devices called Quick Office Pro. It is totally unrelated to OpenOffice project and code. A link to it is https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8 They link to http://openoffice.org for user support. This results in many off-topic requests to the users list and in damage for the OpenOffice reputation; also, the app is not free, so they ask for refund and confuse our users. (We are trying, by the way, to get that app removed from the store, but it's a parallel course of action). Moderators on the users list have been considering to reject messages related to Quick Office Pro and to accompany rejection with a message explaining that OpenOffice has nothing (at a project level or code level) to do with Quick Office Pro, that the Quick Office Pro developers are abusing our support channels and that users should report the app to the Store where they bought it. Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above. This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion. A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective. If you have very, very valid concerns against this please speak up; otherwise I recommend that you realize that we virtually anything else is more important than Quick Office Pro, so if you, unlike me, have a lot of free time, you can spend it in more productive ways! Regards, Andrea. +1 on this proposal. And... I think we should be contacting Quick Office Pro about changing their support information if we haven't already. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. -- Friedrich Nietzsche - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 02 Dec2014, at 18:23, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/02/2014 02:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: There's an app for Apple devices called Quick Office Pro. It is totally unrelated to OpenOffice project and code. A link to it is https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8 They link to http://openoffice.org for user support. This results in many off-topic requests to the users list and in damage for the OpenOffice reputation; also, the app is not free, so they ask for refund and confuse our users. (We are trying, by the way, to get that app removed from the store, but it's a parallel course of action). Moderators on the users list have been considering to reject messages related to Quick Office Pro and to accompany rejection with a message explaining that OpenOffice has nothing (at a project level or code level) to do with Quick Office Pro, that the Quick Office Pro developers are abusing our support channels and that users should report the app to the Store where they bought it. Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above. This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion. A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective. If you have very, very valid concerns against this please speak up; otherwise I recommend that you realize that we virtually anything else is more important than Quick Office Pro, so if you, unlike me, have a lot of free time, you can spend it in more productive ways! Regards, Andrea. +1 on this proposal. And... I think we should be contacting Quick Office Pro about changing their support information if we haven't already. +1 to get “them” to stop sending folks to us. But the issue is not so simple….. and requires some contact with Google and also Apple, I think. The story is interesting. Actually, I’m kind of surprised they are doing this. But also a correction. The ® name for them is “Quickoffice®-Pro”. They were acquired by Google 5 June 2012, and on 29 June 2014, after having digested them, Google discontinued the app from its Google Play and App Stores.* Supposedly, and I had thought this, Google made it all free and integrated into its Docs. Indeed if you click on the official Website given us by Wikipedia, you’ll find yourself in Google land. Not so if you click on the link Andrea put out. Click on the “Lee Elman Web site” or the “Quickoffice® - Pro Support” links and you’ll get… us. Lee Elman is also hard to track down, at least if you only spend 10 seconds. I looked at the Lee Elman in LinkedIn who also does “One Nation TV” (listed on the link Andrea sent as also made by the same maker as Quickoffice), and got this guy who is the COO of One Nation TV in NYC, NY, and who does not list at all any mention of Quickoffice, let alone Google. Who then is getting this money? I mean, once, long ago, and well prior to the acquisition by Google, I downloaded the free version of Quickoffice but surely there are those who are paying for it… and who’s getting it? Recall, this product was one that Google acquired and incorporated into its *free* Docs. Apple’s iTunes Store is notorious for mixing payment, product identity, and so on. In this case, the issues are complicated by the fact that this is for iOS and not Android, though Google Docs works fine on iOS. It’s further complicated by them (whoever they are) sending people to us (we know who we are, at least). And it’s further messed up by question mark: who’s getting this money? That’s not really of our concern, but is of concern. I would recommend contacting Apple, Google. I tried already to connect with Lee Elman via LinkedIn and will send him a friendly query, to find out what’s up and is he responsible for sending people to AOO…. I’m curious. Best louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. -- Friedrich Nietzsche - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
Am 12/03/2014 12:23 AM, schrieb Kay Schenk: On 12/02/2014 02:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: [...] Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above. This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion. A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective. [...] +1 on this proposal. And... In general +1. But I would like to see the complete text that should be used as general message when rejecting mails. @Andrea: Can you state this in a separate paragraph? And it shouldn't be limited to users@ but should be used for all - also for dev@. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: There's an app for Apple devices called Quick Office Pro. It is totally unrelated to OpenOffice project and code. A link to it is https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8 They link to http://openoffice.org for user support. This results in many off-topic requests to the users list and in damage for the OpenOffice reputation; also, the app is not free, so they ask for refund and confuse our users. (We are trying, by the way, to get that app removed from the store, but it's a parallel course of action). Moderators on the users list have been considering to reject messages related to Quick Office Pro and to accompany rejection with a message explaining that OpenOffice has nothing (at a project level or code level) to do with Quick Office Pro, that the Quick Office Pro developers are abusing our support channels and that users should report the app to the Store where they bought it. Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server level? Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro? If we do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right? -Rob Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above. This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion. A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective. If you have very, very valid concerns against this please speak up; otherwise I recommend that you realize that we virtually anything else is more important than Quick Office Pro, so if you, unlike me, have a lot of free time, you can spend it in more productive ways! Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote: Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server level? Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro? If we do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right? I doubt there will be a common referrer as the links on https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8 just point to openoffice.org and the users getting through seem to be smart enough to find a contact address. But if there was a way to do that it would be even better, yes. S.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server
level? Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming
from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage
where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro? If we
do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right?
I doubt there will be a common referrer as the links on
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8
just point to openoffice.org and the users getting through seem to be smart
enough to find a contact address. But if there was a way to do that it
would be even better, yes.
I understand. It should be possible to detect and redirect all
incoming website requests that originate from
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512
This could be done preferably at the Apache HTTP Server level, or
(less reliably) on our home page with a Javascript redirect:
script
if ( window.document.referrer.indexOf(
/itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512 ) != -1 ) {
location.href = http://www.openoffice.org/new-special-page.html;;
}
/script
Regards,
-Rob
S.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Rob Weir r...@robweir.com wrote:
Is there a way we could handle it even earlier, at the Apache server
level? Detect the incoming link based on the referrer as ones coming
from the offending website and then redirect that to a custom webpage
where we explain to the user that we are not QuickOffice Pro? If we
do that then we would get no (or far fewer) emails, right?
I doubt there will be a common referrer as the links on
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512?mt=8
just point to openoffice.org and the users getting through seem to be
smart
enough to find a contact address. But if there was a way to do that it
would be even better, yes.
I understand. It should be possible to detect and redirect all
incoming website requests that originate from
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512
This could be done preferably at the Apache HTTP Server level, or
(less reliably) on our home page with a Javascript redirect:
script
if ( window.document.referrer.indexOf(
/itunes.apple.com/gb/app/quickoffice-pro/id889011512 ) != -1 ) {
location.href = http://www.openoffice.org/new-special-page.html;;
}
/script
Ah right, I read your initial proposal as scanning e-mails, sorry. The
referrer would need to be a pattern since there are many App Stores all
over the place, but that should certainly reduce the number of queries.
S.
RE: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
+1 -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2014 15:23 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages On 12/02/2014 02:29 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: [ ... ] Since there are concerns that the power to decide what to reject can be too subjective, I'm asking that we (subject to lazy consensus) agree that Quick Office Pro posts can be rejected with the explanation note described above. This will get irrelevant messages out of the list and avoid dangerous misunderstandings: I've personally replied to several such posts and I've seen other users get confused and believe that the reports applied to OpenOffice instead of Quick Office Pro, thus leading to even more confusion. A well-written rejection notice can be much more effective. [ ... ] +1 on this proposal. And... I think we should be contacting Quick Office Pro about changing their support information if we haven't already. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- - MzK One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. -- Friedrich Nietzsche - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 03/12/14 00:01, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: The ® name for them is “Quickoffice®-Pro”. That is the name of the software. I've seen three or four different names for the vendor. Who then is getting this money? Scammers. jonathon * English - detected * English * English javascript:void(0); signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 02 Dec2014, at 21:05, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/12/14 00:01, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: The ® name for them is “Quickoffice®-Pro”. That is the name of the software. I've seen three or four different names for the vendor. Who then is getting this money? Scammers. Well, maybe. Recall that Google owns Quickoffice. They distribute their incorporated version as Google Docs, even for iOS. It is possible that the Lee Elman I’ve contacted via LinkedIn is a “scammer.” But also perhaps not. Apple’s iTunes Store is, as I noted, hardly the garden of sanity one might hope to find. The issue that concerns us, Apache OpenOffice, is narrow. Whom we complain to, however, implies a larger issue. Eg, do we complain to Apple? To Google? to both? I suggested both. Rob and Simon have since also intervened with suggestions with immediate effect. -louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 03/12/14 02:15, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: Recall that Google owns Quickoffice. I do not assume that any of the programs carrying the QuickOffice moniker in the iTunes store is the same program that Google distributed. Lee Elman is just as likely to be a victim as Apache OpenOffice is. The issue that concerns us, Apache OpenOffice, is narrow. Whom we complain to, however, implies a larger issue. Eg, do we complain to Apple? To Google? to both? I suggested both. Attorney-General of the State of California, for violation of the consumer protection laws in the States of California. (There are some advantages to states that think that their legal jurisdiction encompasses the entire known and unknown multiverse, regardless of what residents and claimants of other legal jurisdictions think about that presumption.) jonathon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PROPOSAL] Rejecting Quick Office Pro messages
On 02 Dec2014, at 21:43, jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/12/14 02:15, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: Recall that Google owns Quickoffice. I do not assume that any of the programs carrying the QuickOffice moniker in the iTunes store is the same program that Google distributed. Lee Elman is just as likely to be a victim as Apache OpenOffice is. The issue that concerns us, Apache OpenOffice, is narrow. Whom we complain to, however, implies a larger issue. Eg, do we complain to Apple? To Google? to both? I suggested both. Attorney-General of the State of California, for violation of the consumer protection laws in the States of California. (There are some advantages to states that think that their legal jurisdiction encompasses the entire known and unknown multiverse, regardless of what residents and claimants of other legal jurisdictions think about that presumption.) jonathon j— I agree with you. I’d like, however, for the other hugely rich companies to do their bit and put their houses in order, as the disorder is affecting us, an open source entity with nothing like the resources they have. Laws in this case may be (ideally) impartial but getting the legal machinery to move usually requires big resources. Cheers, louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
