[tdf-discuss] Grant of License
This grant does not specify any particular open-source license. My intention is to not limit in any way the licensing of works that my contributions are incorporated in. The license is self- contained for that reason. There is no conflict with how LibreOffice releases are licensed and there is nothing that has to be done about the presence of my contributions or derivatives thereof. It is also my intention that everyone having access to my contributions to LibreOffice where they are so contributed be be granted the license whether or not the contribution is accepted into LibreOffice and wherever those recipients might choose to rely on its provisions. The license makes no stipulations one way or the other concerning works of mine that are not contributions to LibreOffice. The license does not transfer copyright nor does it assign patents. - Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 GrantTDF 1.00 UTF-8 dh:2013-03-07 GRANT OF LICENSE All of my past and future contributions to LibreOffice are with the following stipulations: 1. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no- charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, combine, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the contributions and such derivative works. 2. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer works employing my contributions or derivatives thereof, with such license applying only to those claims controlled by myself, now or in the future, that are necessarily infringed due to characteristics of my LibreOffice contributions and such of those that survive in derivatives. I represent that I am legally entitled to grant the above licenses. March 7, 2013 Dennis E. Hamilton 4401 44th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 USA orc...@apache.org PGP Fingerprint 169F 4BC4 3C47 18B2 7062 E04C B011 4B87 2E94 D8E4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROVBzAAoJELARS4culNjkfR0H/i/U9lv0jYy8XD/BD4JaFD49 r8ixUNb1FcNxe4ICGaz/2e53doc0wPPgVUyzpB/+nURgObDBBE8eK96RqZ+zt22N yOpxlynRPBxkjfqtw/kaG+v9concl7khghsyZVyieIFOwhMGpMNiZ2tJFDMnKKgW /s3bva+1lsGTUNBJOoNLXyP9iQUWNLFByI15vUshL4aqLsHmdT25gkmDggWQR//h NHH07nJA7mRDY2DotX3IwZrUinyM0rmWpKshF3GTQ+/beuTu2ZBPYFmG3GH4Bx9X UISQoGOKLI1NwtEGkzaao2tYC4QSV7vGXqQDg+A9DMEJ1LFis3iL5wKXUuOJknI= =KW4c -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code
@Simon: Andrea Pescetti cross-posted to [tdf-discuss] and [openoffice-dev] some clarifying information, but his sending from an @apache.org e-mail is apparently hung up in a moderation queue - he has probably not subscribed with that one. So you are seeing threads following from it that [tdf-discuss] hasn't actually seen yet (except under a cross-posted response from Louis [;). In Andrea's post, the contribution page on the AOO Wiki is offered as the Apache OpenOffice response to Jim Jagielski's question: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html. On rereading that a few times, I do find that it is less circumspect than the equivalent TDF page. Part of the disconnect is that LibreOffice contributors don't usually put notices on the contribution. A separate, one-time declaration is used. Clearly, not all of the declaration-granted licenses are necessarily used or shown in the code release (i.e., MPL has not been used). The iCLA recorded by ASF committers does not stipulate any specific open-source license (let alone dual-licensing) whatsoever and it basically empowers ASF to release the contribution under any license insofar as it is compatible with the individual iCLA grant. (The ALv2 does not require someone to stipulate the Apache License either. The AOO contribution page is incorrect about that. The default for a contribution is as I mention in my reply.) In each case though, the grants/declarations are specifically to the project the contribution is submitted to. They don't, in themselves, apply to anyone else. Now, with that context, here is my reply to Pescetti's post on AOO (I didn't want to cross-post or continue the cross-quoting): From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2013 09:09 To: d...@openoffice.apache.org Cc: 'Jim Jagielski' Subject: RE: Dual licensing of patches and code It is not clear to me that the Apache OpenOffice statement answers the question as it was asked at [tdf-discuss]. I read Jim's question as being about multi-licensing (dual- or more). Not about a contributor making a contribution of their original work in two places and under different licenses in each place. That's very different. If the AOO page is considered an affirmative response to Jim's question, then so is Florian Effenberger's pointing to The Document Foundation license-policy page, https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/License_Policy. For me, multi-licensing would be a kind of one-stop contribution that allows the contribution to be used by those who obtain it in accordance with whichever of the multi-licensings they choose. Nothing is done to facilitate that by either project. Furthermore, all of the licenses that are considered have strings on how a contri- bution is accounted for in any combined/derivative work. By the way, there is no mention of the Apache License (any version) in the iCLA that is offered to the ASF and that all committers have on record. It strikes me that a contribution in accordance with the default case in section 5 of the ALv2 is similarly entirely about sections 2, 3 and related definitions. The sections about recipients is not something that governs the contributor's use of their own contribution (a good reason those are not in the iCLA, since an iCLA is entirely about contribution). Cf. http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0. The manner in which TDF collects license grants is rather different, with contributors specifying the licenses that their work can be released under (i.e., they are multi-licensing their contributions). From all of this, you can surmise what I mean to accomplish by my blanket, public grants regarding my contributions to LibreOffice and Apache projects, so that anyone can make us of those contributions, no matter which project the contributed is made to, with the same permissiveness granted to the ASF in an Apache iCLA. And that can be done without my having to make direct contributions in more than one of those places. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 08:25 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org; Andrea Pescetti Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Dual licensing of patches and code On 13-03-09, at 05:39 , Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: The conversation below happened in public, but not on the OpenOffice public lists. I believe it's good to record its outcome here on the OpenOffice dev list too. Do you know why the question was asked and settled in secret at Apache but has been posed in public at TDF? It seems odd and perhaps political that should happen. S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All
[tdf-discuss] FW: GRANT OF LICENSE: Dennis E. Hamilton - ASF Contributions
This is the complementary grant applicable to my contributions to the Apache Software Foundation. I am making copies of both grants available to the ASF Secretary so they can be carried in the records of the Foundation. This posting can be found at http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201303.mbox/%3c008801ce1c21$0deb3560$29c1a020$@apache.org%3e. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 09:19 To: d...@openoffice.apache.org Subject: GRANT OF LICENSE: Dennis E. Hamilton The grant of license (below) applies to all of my contributions to ASF projects beyond the provisions of the Contributor License Agreement that I have entered into with The Apache Software Foundation. The purpose is to make my contributions equally available beyond the Apache Project to which I make the contribution. The contri- butions are licensed, by the grant below, to anyone who chooses to make use of them, whether another Apache Project, a non-Apache Project using Alv2, and other projects that choose to rely on the grant. It is my intention that my contributions to the Apache OpenOffice project be available to The Document Foundation under these terms. The license makes no stipulations one way or the other concerning works of mine that are not contributions to LibreOffice. The license does not transfer copyright nor does it assign patents. A complementary grant has been made with respect to my contribu- tions to the LibreOffice project. - Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 GrantASF 1.00 UTF-8 dh:2013-03-08 GRANT OF LICENSE All of my past and future contributions to Projects of The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) are made with the following stipulations beyond those of my Contributor License Agreement with ASF: 1. I hereby grant to all parties obtaining my ASF contribu- tions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, combine, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the contribu- tions and such derivative works. 2. I hereby grant to all parties obtaining my ASF contri- butions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer works employing my contributions or derivatives thereof, with such license applying only to those claims controlled by myself, now or in the future, that are necessarily infringed due to characteristics of my ASF contributions and such of those that survive in derivatives. I represent that I am legally entitled to grant the above licenses and make those contributions that I offer to ASF projects. March 8, 2013 Dennis E. Hamilton 4401 44th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 USA dennis.hamil...@acm.org orc...@apache.org PGP Fingerprint 169F 4BC4 3C47 18B2 7062 E04C B011 4B87 2E94 D8E4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROhlsAAoJELARS4culNjkVcMH/jEduLymGTnppBZAlHXSZYIq IsYvfomnaEAJOgLbUETQ3boxvbxcSsJ5hrRsE9OPcm0UGZNQWdutKr9u1m2VnehL qYPm8S/noNV2spdI//Xk73/TrLMvw4ds9FdMw+pr9LqfD6QwdhFNB1f0PYaxLU2z 8/F12qOIPfcYFWWHOU9iR+Yi4tdrdBleHDcBBWOw5BzLU10dAXiMmqPfUr4cgYUD FU+OPuIVyakH32wJ7a2+iZzaT7N0NXcyobluUoYdtGUfiKIbIeW8c2WC8JljB2dw 7h+Aq7952YyHK0mHRBWA/vtQ1WGN1TTTlqBxRK4OT8kqxwOECLI0hhphplt+Qdo= =KBti -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal
I work with a 2560 x 1600 display. One reason is so that I can do work among multiple documents that I keep open at once. I *never* have a document application running full screen on my 30 monitor. I even object to web pages that can't be viewed properly unless the browser-window is kept too wide. And these days, requiring full use of the 1040 x 768 display by a single app on my Tablet PC is also burdensome. I think an important approach to allowing flexible usage, including accommodation of smaller displays, is simplifying what an application window requires kept inside the application window by having as much as possible fly away and also be easily re-expanded and again collapsed. Having more contextual control (e.g., sensitivity of right-click to context) also matters. And, of course, accessibility considerations apply at all sizes and shapes. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Keith Curtis [mailto:keit...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 13:45 To: Kracked_P_P---webmaster Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Experimental UI for LibreOffice proposal On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Kracked_P_P---webmaster webmas...@krackedpress.com wrote: [ ... ] What is the target display width for your design? We may have users that are using 800 pixel width CRT monitors. So whatever you design to be on the side panel, the work space that the use will be doing the typing and editing in must be wide enough for them to efficiently work with the document file. When I was working with the display withs under 1024 pixels, I found many packages that were not designed to be easily used with the smaller width display/monitors. I have some that do notwork with any display that are less than 800 pixels high, let alone a narrow width. There bottom buttons were not accessible. So please think about the users we may have that need a package UI that work well and easy with a 800 pixel wide CRT display or similar limiting with display. To be clear, the underlying image was created by Paulo José. Working on smaller screens is a good question, but you have to get something before you make it work with additional constraints. LibreOffice has two challenges, looking good on the upcoming high-res screens, and working okay on the smaller screens. I think as a start, the focus should be on ~1280 pixels wide screens. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] FW: Grant of License
Using the address by which I am subscribed to discuss @df.o -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:orc...@apache.org] Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 19:48 To: LOffice Developers List (libreoff...@lists.freedesktop.org) Cc: 'discuss@documentfoundation.org' Subject: Grant of License This grant does not specify any particular open-source license. My intention is to not limit in any way the licensing of works that my contributions are incorporated in. The license is self- contained for that reason. There is no conflict with how LibreOffice releases are licensed and there is nothing that has to be done about the presence of my contributions or derivatives thereof. It is also my intention that everyone having access to my contributions to LibreOffice where they are so contributed be be granted the license whether or not the contribution is accepted into LibreOffice and wherever those recipients might choose to rely on its provisions. The license makes no stipulations one way or the other concerning works of mine that are not contributions to LibreOffice. The license does not transfer copyright nor does it assign patents. - Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 GrantTDF 1.00 UTF-8 dh:2013-03-07 GRANT OF LICENSE All of my past and future contributions to LibreOffice are with the following stipulations: 1. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no- charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, combine, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the contributions and such derivative works. 2. I hereby grant to all recipients of my LibreOffice contributions a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer works employing my contributions or derivatives thereof, with such license applying only to those claims controlled by myself, now or in the future, that are necessarily infringed due to characteristics of my LibreOffice contributions and such of those that survive in derivatives. I represent that I am legally entitled to grant the above licenses. March 7, 2013 Dennis E. Hamilton 4401 44th Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116 USA orc...@apache.org PGP Fingerprint 169F 4BC4 3C47 18B2 7062 E04C B011 4B87 2E94 D8E4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJROVBzAAoJELARS4culNjkfR0H/i/U9lv0jYy8XD/BD4JaFD49 r8ixUNb1FcNxe4ICGaz/2e53doc0wPPgVUyzpB/+nURgObDBBE8eK96RqZ+zt22N yOpxlynRPBxkjfqtw/kaG+v9concl7khghsyZVyieIFOwhMGpMNiZ2tJFDMnKKgW /s3bva+1lsGTUNBJOoNLXyP9iQUWNLFByI15vUshL4aqLsHmdT25gkmDggWQR//h NHH07nJA7mRDY2DotX3IwZrUinyM0rmWpKshF3GTQ+/beuTu2ZBPYFmG3GH4Bx9X UISQoGOKLI1NwtEGkzaao2tYC4QSV7vGXqQDg+A9DMEJ1LFis3iL5wKXUuOJknI= =KW4c -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [libreoffice-users] Re: [tdf-discuss] How did AOO figure it was worth $21 Million dollars a day or $7 billion per year?
SourceForge reports downloads by country. It appears that the number of languages supported does not limit the locations where the downloads happen (although destination country is necessarily an estimate, just as it is on the ClustrMap of visitors to my web sites). I assume that as language versions increase (as just happened in a refresh of AOO 3.4.1), the proportion of downloads will improve for countries where those languages are used/preferred by someone. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Italo Vignoli [mailto:italo.vign...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 09:26 To: charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Cc: webmas...@krackedpress.com; us...@global.libreoffice.org; discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: [tdf-discuss] How did AOO figure it was worth $21 Million dollars a day or $7 billion per year? On 2/19/13 6:20 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: I suspect they multiply the standard package price of MS Office and multiply that by their numbers of stated downloads, then divide it by 365. At least that's how I would do it. Average number of downloads per day, multiplied by 150 dollars (which is the inflated average price of MS Office Home, as the price is less than 80 dollars now). By the way, they claim 236 countries and territories while their language versions are around 10% than that. Huge FUD by the master of IBM FUD, Mister Robert Weir. -- Italo Vignoli - italo.vign...@gmail.com mob +39.348.5653829 - VoIP 5316...@messagenet.it skype italovignoli - gtalk italo.vign...@gmail.com -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] How did AOO figure it was worth $21 Million dollars a day or $7 billion per year?
I thought the article explained exactly how it was calculated: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/21_million_per_day. There's no need to speculate. There are two base figures: (1) the average number of AOO full-install downloads per day and (2) an estimated average price for a permanent Microsoft Office desktop license. Rob used $150 US which is the price for Office 2013 Home and Student. That includes service packs, etc., but not upgrades to later versions of Microsoft Office. For Office 365/2013 there is a lower price -- the student price for Office 365 rental is a single $79 for a four-year lease, which includes any updates to the desktop products in that time. The $99/year Office 365 Home Premium (one rental good for noncommercial use on up to 5 machines) is another option, including not only the Office 2013 versions of Excel, Word, and PowerPoint, but Outlook, Access, Publisher, and OneNote (and their updates and upgrades for as long as the rental continues). Since it is perhaps personal use that is the most price-sensitive case, assuming that one download avoids a $100-$150 expense is probably not far off for estimation purposes. LibreOffice can use the same logic that Apache OpenOffice did. -Original Message- From: Charles-H. Schulz [mailto:charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 09:21 To: webmaster-Kracked_P_P Cc: LibreO - Users Global; LibreO - Discuss Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] How did AOO figure it was worth $21 Million dollars a day or $7 billion per year? Hello Tim, I suspect they multiply the standard package price of MS Office and multiply that by their numbers of stated downloads, then divide it by 365. At least that's how I would do it. best, Charles. Le mardi 19 février 2013 à 12:15 -0500, webmaster-Kracked_P_P a écrit : How did AOO figure out how much their version of OOo was worth per day to users? I cannot figure out any way. Of course it makes great Marketing Copy. We are giving our users some much product value, we must be the better product. FUD or what? --- http://www.eweek.com/enterprise-apps/apache-openoffice-valued-at-21m-per-day The Apache Software Foundation (ASF) announced that Apache OpenOffice has a value of $21 million a day. ASF officials said Apache OpenOffice has averaged 131,455 downloads per day since its 3.4 release last May. That represents an average value to the public of $21 million per day or $7.61 billion per year, ASF said. -- Charles-H. Schulz Co-Founder Director, The Document Foundation, Zimmerstr. 69, 10117 Berlin, Germany Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Persona will no longer use that name, but be part of Themes - according to Firefox
Good idea to stop using persona. Also, Mozilla uses persona for their identity system, perhaps why the same term is no longer going to be used for the theme system. - Dennis -Original Message- From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 13:13 To: LibreO - Marketing Global; LibreO - Discuss Cc: Jean Hollis Weber Subject: [tdf-discuss] Persona will no longer use that name, but be part of Themes - according to Firefox I got an email from Mozilla about an issues with 2 of my Persona designs looking too similar. When I replied to that email, I got one in return that had some info and a link to the following Blog. http://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2012/03/01/personas-are-joining-the-themes-fa mily/ It looks like Mozilla, as of March 1st, will not longer use the name Persona, as a separate idea over the generic Theme idea of a personalized background for Firefox. So, we might want to look into updating what it is called in the next version of LO 4.0.x. Also it might need to have some editing in the documentation where it talks about the personalization using Firefox Persona. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness
To be clear, the OOXML File Format is the subject of an International Standard, the same way that ODF is an International Standard. (OOXML started off in ECMA, ODF started off in OASIS. Both are ISO Standards.) So the specifications are open and freely available. You can download them for free. In addition, Microsoft has provided its Open Specification Promise and other declarations so that implementations of consumers and producers of the format are not subject to any patent claims from Microsoft and it is not necessary to obtain a license. Sun did something similar for ODF. The Microsoft Office *implementation* is not open source. Likewise, the built-in support of ODF in Microsoft Office is not open source. The standards for the formats are open. Open-source implementations are not required. Support for OOXML in products like LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice, and in the Apache POI Project, to name three, is open source -- they are open source projects and the source code is available under open source licenses. Just as support for ODF in LibO, AOO, and the ODF Toolkit is with open-source code. -Original Message- From: lj [mailto:ljelou...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 00:08 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Fwd: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness -- Forwarded message -- From: lj ljelou...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 7:07 PM Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org dennis.hamil...@acm.org Thank you for the explanation of OOXML. But I am still confused. To Clear Things Up I need to know if the OOXML File Format, is open sourced... or proprietary? (This was probably mentioned before...) Then I would definitely have a clearer understanding. Thanks, LJ On 08/02/2013, at 5:49 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Yes there is an International Standard for OOXML. I *suspect* that the provision of two-different Save As ... cases is (1) for the Transitional Standard OOXML which is the closest to what is acceptable by all Microsoft Office applications that accept .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx, and (2) for Strict Standard OOXML that is accepted only by Office 2010 and 2013 and can be produced by 2013. I have no idea how close the alignment of LibreOffice is to those two flavors of Standard OOXML, which is a different question. There are those who think that Transitional is somehow not truly OOXML, but both are specified in the International Standard. Microsoft Office also takes advantage of the extension mechanism, MCE, that is provided in the International Standard. I don't know how that sorts out in the interoperability between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office using OOXML. The Wikipedia article is not bad. However, there has been significant maintenance of IS 29500:2008 and that has impacted the original separation of Transitional and Strict by making them syntactically separate while having considerable overlap in terms of function and semantics. The current edition of the International Standard for OOXML is IS 29500:2012. There is also an in-process amendment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: lj [mailto:ljelou...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 15:38 To: Simon Phipps Cc: Jonathan Aquilina; Boudi van Vlijmen; discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness Isn't there a standard Office Open XML Document Format? What is the difference between office open xml and standard microsoft docx formats in LibreOffice and why does LibreOffice include both? is there also a link where I can read about this... the only think I have found useful is what open xml is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: I don't know anyone who uses Office so I'm afraid I can't answer. That's why I send PDFs - everyone can open those and see the same document. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com wrote: My question though Simon is how well is ODF formatting preserved when opening up ODF formats in office 2010 and above on windows. -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:11 PM To: Boudi van Vlijmen Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness I generally advise people to send me PDFs rather than editable documents unless there's a real need for me to edit them. That way there's no risk anyone will get locked-in to anything :-) If I *do* need to be able to edit I request Hybrid PDF files, which are PDFs with the original ODF source embedded. They are easy to make with LibreOffice and I've created a tutorial here: http://webmink.com/2012/05/07/making-hybrid-pdfs/ S. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Boudi van Vlijmen bo...@vanvlijmen.nlwrote
RE: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness
+1 -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 07:11 To: Boudi van Vlijmen Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness I generally advise people to send me PDFs rather than editable documents unless there's a real need for me to edit them. That way there's no risk anyone will get locked-in to anything :-) If I *do* need to be able to edit I request Hybrid PDF files, which are PDFs with the original ODF source embedded. They are easy to make with LibreOffice and I've created a tutorial here: http://webmink.com/2012/05/07/making-hybrid-pdfs/ S. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Boudi van Vlijmen bo...@vanvlijmen.nlwrote: Friends, Every email I send has the footer as in this one. The purpose is to achieve; 1. Vendor-lock-in awarness 2. Hook in on the society learning curve status. The message is: ODT in place of DOC/DOCX, ODS in place of XLS/XLSX, ODP in place of PPT/PPTX. ODF is one bridge to far. People think in DOC, XLS and PPT. To get them away from that we should start from there. Not with a high level ODF concept! [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness
Based on limited anecdotal evidence (my own), Office 2010 support for ODF formats seems to be about the same as in Office 2007. For Office 2013, I am always startled by how well Excel 2013 (Preview) works with .ods files now that OpenFormula is supported. On the other hand, in my few trials with .odt files I personally experienced some unexpected defects when opening them in Word 2013 (Preview). This is not a systematic analysis and I don't know where one will find one. The Word cases were unexpected and I wonder if there are some sort of difference in the interpretation of the ODF 1.2 specification that needs to be hammered out. But that's shear speculation on my part. It is unfortunate that venues such as the ODF Interoperability and Conformance TC and the Plugfests held within the EU are not exploited more to identify and eliminate some of these problems. (Unless I've missed something, only Microsoft has made available a large collection of test/sample documents, presumably ones that Office does well. Apache OpenOffice is discussing ways to provide a contributed compilation from other sources that can be used openly but I don't know if any action is pending.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jonathan Aquilina [mailto:eagles051...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 09:57 To: 'Simon Phipps'; 'Boudi van Vlijmen' Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness My question though Simon is how well is ODF formatting preserved when opening up ODF formats in office 2010 and above on windows. -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:11 PM To: Boudi van Vlijmen Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness I generally advise people to send me PDFs rather than editable documents unless there's a real need for me to edit them. That way there's no risk anyone will get locked-in to anything :-) If I *do* need to be able to edit I request Hybrid PDF files, which are PDFs with the original ODF source embedded. They are easy to make with LibreOffice and I've created a tutorial here: http://webmink.com/2012/05/07/making-hybrid-pdfs/ S. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Boudi van Vlijmen bo...@vanvlijmen.nlwrote: Friends, Every email I send has the footer as in this one. The purpose is to achieve; 1. Vendor-lock-in awarness 2. Hook in on the society learning curve status. The message is: ODT in place of DOC/DOCX, ODS in place of XLS/XLSX, ODP in place of PPT/PPTX. ODF is one bridge to far. People think in DOC, XLS and PPT. To get them away from that we should start from there. Not with a high level ODF concept! Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Boudi van Vlijmen http://www.vanvlijmen.nl *Werk documenten* ODT, gDoc, DOC, DOCX ODS, gSheet, XLS, XLSX en ODP, gSlides, PPT, PPTX *Distributie en Archivering* PDF/A http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A [image: Inline image 1] [image: Inline image 1] *Open standards or Open Wallets that is the question! Waak over uw onafhankelijkheid! * http://forumstandaardisatie.nl/ Beleidsquote Rijksdiensten moeten vanaf april 2008 ODF ondersteunen. Mede-overheden en overige instellingen volgen uiterlijk december 2008. ODF = .odt voor tekst, .ods voor spreadsheets, .odp voor presentaties Vendor-lock safe formats http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument ** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6087 - Release Date: 02/07/13 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6087 - Release Date: 02/07/13 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness
Yes there is an International Standard for OOXML. I *suspect* that the provision of two-different Save As ... cases is (1) for the Transitional Standard OOXML which is the closest to what is acceptable by all Microsoft Office applications that accept .docx, .xlsx, and .pptx, and (2) for Strict Standard OOXML that is accepted only by Office 2010 and 2013 and can be produced by 2013. I have no idea how close the alignment of LibreOffice is to those two flavors of Standard OOXML, which is a different question. There are those who think that Transitional is somehow not truly OOXML, but both are specified in the International Standard. Microsoft Office also takes advantage of the extension mechanism, MCE, that is provided in the International Standard. I don't know how that sorts out in the interoperability between LibreOffice and Microsoft Office using OOXML. The Wikipedia article is not bad. However, there has been significant maintenance of IS 29500:2008 and that has impacted the original separation of Transitional and Strict by making them syntactically separate while having considerable overlap in terms of function and semantics. The current edition of the International Standard for OOXML is IS 29500:2012. There is also an in-process amendment. - Dennis -Original Message- From: lj [mailto:ljelou...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 15:38 To: Simon Phipps Cc: Jonathan Aquilina; Boudi van Vlijmen; discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness Isn't there a standard Office Open XML Document Format? What is the difference between office open xml and standard microsoft docx formats in LibreOffice and why does LibreOffice include both? is there also a link where I can read about this... the only think I have found useful is what open xml is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: I don't know anyone who uses Office so I'm afraid I can't answer. That's why I send PDFs - everyone can open those and see the same document. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com wrote: My question though Simon is how well is ODF formatting preserved when opening up ODF formats in office 2010 and above on windows. -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:11 PM To: Boudi van Vlijmen Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Help vendor-lock-in awareness I generally advise people to send me PDFs rather than editable documents unless there's a real need for me to edit them. That way there's no risk anyone will get locked-in to anything :-) If I *do* need to be able to edit I request Hybrid PDF files, which are PDFs with the original ODF source embedded. They are easy to make with LibreOffice and I've created a tutorial here: http://webmink.com/2012/05/07/making-hybrid-pdfs/ S. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Boudi van Vlijmen bo...@vanvlijmen.nlwrote: Friends, Every email I send has the footer as in this one. The purpose is to achieve; 1. Vendor-lock-in awarness 2. Hook in on the society learning curve status. The message is: ODT in place of DOC/DOCX, ODS in place of XLS/XLSX, ODP in place of PPT/PPTX. ODF is one bridge to far. People think in DOC, XLS and PPT. To get them away from that we should start from there. Not with a high level ODF concept! Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Boudi van Vlijmen http://www.vanvlijmen.nl *Werk documenten* ODT, gDoc, DOC, DOCX ODS, gSheet, XLS, XLSX en ODP, gSlides, PPT, PPTX *Distributie en Archivering* PDF/A http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF/A [image: Inline image 1] [image: Inline image 1] *Open standards or Open Wallets that is the question! Waak over uw onafhankelijkheid! * http://forumstandaardisatie.nl/ Beleidsquote Rijksdiensten moeten vanaf april 2008 ODF ondersteunen. Mede-overheden en overige instellingen volgen uiterlijk december 2008. ODF = .odt voor tekst, .ods voor spreadsheets, .odp voor presentaties Vendor-lock safe formats http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument ** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6087 - Release Date: 02/07/13 - No virus found in this message. Checked by
RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: OpenJDK Vulnerability
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2013-January/089440.html It appears that the particular reflection feature in Java 7 is the security-exploit gift that just keeps on giving. The answer is still to disable Java plug-ins in browsers and have Java installed only if you depend on it for something (certain LibreOffice extensions, Base, other Java-based applications, etc.). -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 09:10 To: 'Simon Phipps' Cc: 'lj'; 'Libreoffice Discussion List' Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: OpenJDK Vulnerability Simon has just provided a superb account of the Java security problem in an InfoWorld blog post today: http://www.infoworld.com/t/java-programming/why-fixing-the-java-flaw-will-take-so-long-210946. I find this more-technical analysis to be plausible as well, and Simon's report provides context that makes it a bit more understandable: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2013-January/089375.html. [ ... ] For users of openoffice-lineage software, I am not sure what the concern should be. Disabling java browser plugins seems prudent. It may be inevitable that web sites will cease depending on users employing such plugins with the famed Java Applet disappearing into history. [ ... ] -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 19:29 To: Dennis Hamilton Cc: lj; Libreoffice Discussion List Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: OpenJDK Vulnerability I'm investigating, but the issue is a sandbox security manager bypass using unauthorised reflection and that's exploited using Rhino Javascript. So the context has to be a browser for there to be an issue even if OpenJDK is affected. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-0422 for lots of data... S. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: OpenJDK Vulnerability
Simon has just provided a superb account of the Java security problem in an InfoWorld blog post today: http://www.infoworld.com/t/java-programming/why-fixing-the-java-flaw-will-take-so-long-210946. I find this more-technical analysis to be plausible as well, and Simon's report provides context that makes it a bit more understandable: http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2013-January/089375.html. My initial concern as this game of dominoes unfolded over the past few months was that Oracle had somehow managed to lose its grip on the reliable development of Java and especially its security and safety. It is somewhat reassuring that the problems are with respect to new capabilities introduced in Java 7, offset by evidence that a concerted threat analysis was not done and that, even when a flaw was detected, the broader consequences did not appear to be recognized (or at least acknowledged). That the manner in which security flaws are handled in private can lead to rampant speculation about the competence/attitude of the software producer is not helping. There is a tendency to now treat Java as insecure until proven otherwise, where proving otherwise is a near-impossible bar to hurdle. (Look at the difficulty that Microsoft has in establishing that its products are *not* so insecure as it remains in the popular wisdom.) For users of openoffice-lineage software, I am not sure what the concern should be. Disabling java browser plugins seems prudent. It may be inevitable that web sites will cease depending on users employing such plugins with the famed Java Applet disappearing into history. That does not have so much to do with desktop software, apart from the fact that links to malicious web sites can be activated when those links are in documents or have been crafted into versions created by downstream creators of variant implementations, the ones that are carriers for malware of various kinds. It seems wise, these days, to only obtain official releases, preferably ones that are digitally signed, such as those provided by The Document Foundation. With regard to the use of Java in connection with extensions, including for database access, I think the question is more about the security and reliability of extensions, whether or not there is dependency on Java. This is about more than Java since extensions run under the privileges of the extension user and no sandbox narrows those privileges. I have no doubt that more work is required to provide some way to verify the authenticity of extensions and also assess the dependability of their providers. The more that openoffice-lineage software becomes the product of choice in attack-rewarding activities, the greater will be the urgency to have secure operation of the software and components employed with it. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 19:29 To: Dennis Hamilton Cc: lj; Libreoffice Discussion List Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: OpenJDK Vulnerability I'm investigating, but the issue is a sandbox security manager bypass using unauthorised reflection and that's exploited using Rhino Javascript. So the context has to be a browser for there to be an issue even if OpenJDK is affected. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2013-0422 for lots of data... S. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Again, thanks to Simon Phipps for retweeting the information. It appears that one should *not* assume that OpenJDK does not share vulnerabilities with the Oracle Java SE and JDK: The log of changes to OpenJDK for the recent vulnerability (just as indication of the Oracle updating of OpenJDK): http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7u-dev/2013-January/005354.html The CVE: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alert-cve-2013-0422-1896849.html There is still reporting that this update is not a complete fix. I have not found a reliable technical source that makes clear what the remaining concern is, or if it is simply a lag in reports that have not recognized the latest patches. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 13:27 To: 'lj'; 'Libreoffice Discussion List' Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: This just out: https://blogs.oracle.com/security/entry/security_alert_for_cve_2013 (Thanks to Simon Phipps for the link.) Note that the vulnerabilities only affect Oracle Java 7 versions. - Dennis -Original Message- From: lj [mailto:ljelou...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 19:23 To: Libreoffice Discussion List Subject: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: Hi all, I am not sure if this is the correct list for this message. I recently read this article about
RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: OpenJDK Vulnerability
Again, thanks to Simon Phipps for retweeting the information. It appears that one should *not* assume that OpenJDK does not share vulnerabilities with the Oracle Java SE and JDK: The log of changes to OpenJDK for the recent vulnerability (just as indication of the Oracle updating of OpenJDK): http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jdk7u-dev/2013-January/005354.html The CVE: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/alert-cve-2013-0422-1896849.html There is still reporting that this update is not a complete fix. I have not found a reliable technical source that makes clear what the remaining concern is, or if it is simply a lag in reports that have not recognized the latest patches. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 13:27 To: 'lj'; 'Libreoffice Discussion List' Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: This just out: https://blogs.oracle.com/security/entry/security_alert_for_cve_2013 (Thanks to Simon Phipps for the link.) Note that the vulnerabilities only affect Oracle Java 7 versions. - Dennis -Original Message- From: lj [mailto:ljelou...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 19:23 To: Libreoffice Discussion List Subject: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: Hi all, I am not sure if this is the correct list for this message. I recently read this article about a Java 1.7 Security Problem. Does this problem concern LibreOffice and Java??? This macrumors article post and reads that this problem effects java versions 4-7. At the moment oracle are at java 7. http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/11/apple-blocks-java-7-on-os-x-to-address-widespread-security-threat/ The Forbes article reveals that Mozilla, and Apple are advising users to disable Java on there machines because of this security problem. http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2013/01/11/us-department-of-homeland-security-calls-on-computer-users-to-disable-java/ http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/01/11/apple-takes-no-prisoners-immediately-blocks-java-7-on-os-x-10-6-and-up-to-protect-mac-users/ Can I use LibreOffice without Java enabled on my computer?? As I receive annoying pop up windows when I first use libreoffice to install Java on Apple OS X Mountain Lion. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security:
This just out: https://blogs.oracle.com/security/entry/security_alert_for_cve_2013 (Thanks to Simon Phipps for the link.) Note that the vulnerabilities only affect Oracle Java 7 versions. - Dennis -Original Message- From: lj [mailto:ljelou...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 19:23 To: Libreoffice Discussion List Subject: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice and Java Security: Hi all, I am not sure if this is the correct list for this message. I recently read this article about a Java 1.7 Security Problem. Does this problem concern LibreOffice and Java??? This macrumors article post and reads that this problem effects java versions 4-7. At the moment oracle are at java 7. http://www.macrumors.com/2013/01/11/apple-blocks-java-7-on-os-x-to-address-widespread-security-threat/ The Forbes article reveals that Mozilla, and Apple are advising users to disable Java on there machines because of this security problem. http://www.forbes.com/sites/eliseackerman/2013/01/11/us-department-of-homeland-security-calls-on-computer-users-to-disable-java/ http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/01/11/apple-takes-no-prisoners-immediately-blocks-java-7-on-os-x-10-6-and-up-to-protect-mac-users/ Can I use LibreOffice without Java enabled on my computer?? As I receive annoying pop up windows when I first use libreoffice to install Java on Apple OS X Mountain Lion. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
If you are going to quote the Free Software Foundation, please provide a link to the appropriate information. Note that one such statement, now 18 months old (before Apache OpenOffice had even organized as a podling and produced any releases), is less absolute: http://www.fsf.org/news/openoffice-apache-libreoffice. You can see how Apache OpenOffice extensions are now managed by consulting the SourceForge-hosted download and extension arrangements. These are under continual improvement thanks to the good offices of SourceForge.net. Also, the FSF doesn't consider licenses that are more-generous than GPL to be for Free OSS software. From their perspective, By that logic, Free BSD and Open BSD are not free. Welcome to the post-1984 Brave New World. I think developers are free to determine what protects their freedom, and they do so. Note that, no matter what additional actions are permitted for ALv2-licensed software, the Apache Software Foundation and Apache OpenOffice provide complete, fully-archived, source code of all releases and that is an obligation under the ASF charter to operate in the public interest. That the ASF is more tolerant of kinds of forking than the FSF has nothing to do with what users can expect of Apache OpenOffice as an open-source project. The OSI and its Open Source Definition (OSD) are more tolerant. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition (and the quote from FSF there). I had thought that this discussion had gotten beyond ideological hyperbole. It is disappointing to have it recapped otherwise. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Immanuel Giulea [mailto:giulea.imman...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 09:59 To: Ian Lynch Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org; Marketing; market...@us.libreoffice.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences Thank you everyone for your participation, it was of much enlightenment. LibreOffice is a true free libre open source software (FLOSS) whereas Apache's project is not recognized to be a free software by the Free Software Foundation. LibreOffice has received the backing from several commercial partners such as Red Hat, Canonical, Intel, Google, etc. Immanuel On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 2 January 2013 16:00, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: I think the most important distinction to an end user, aside from knowing that both allow them to *use* the software in any way they see fit - personal, commercial, etc, is that the LO project is able to benefit from AOO code, but AOO is not allowed to benefit from the LO code. Not strictly speaking accurate in that GPL software could not be *used*, as in integrated into a closed source application, even if the user saw fit to do it. But in general the essence is correct. Better or worse is a matter of opinion. On 2013-01-01 1:17 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: On 12/31/2012 02:40 PM, Immanuel Giulea wrote: In the marketing materials that I am writing covering LO vs AOO, I was wondering if it would be relevant to go into an explanation about why the GPL/LGPL licence used by LO was superior to the ASL as a true open source. An average user does not care and will likely only be confused by any claim that LO is better than AOO based on LO using a more restrictive license or some sort of moral high ground that people should only use software using this license. I expect that the more a person cares about the distinction, the more likely they will not need marketing material to explain it to them. I found this great document that explains the three most common licences: ASL, GPL and LGPL (MPL is not included) (1, 2) Any thoughts on how relevant it would be to extract some of the information and apply it on the materials? Almost none. If you do desire to add something, I would probably say something like this (but with cleaned up wording and more thought). Project contributors will note blah blah blah. Or have a section that calls out advantages specifically for people that changes stuff and contribute it back. The license is a choice, and some will prefer it and some will not. Cheers and Happy New Year Immanuel (1) http://www.openlogic.com/**Portals/172122/docs/** understanding-the-three-most-**common-open-source-licenses.**pdf http://www.openlogic.com/Portals/172122/docs/understanding-the-three-most-common-open-source-licenses.pdf (2) http://www.slideshare.net/**slideshow/embed_code/10518967 http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/10518967 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@** documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/**get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-** unsubscribe/ http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
Michael Meeks and I are completely familiar with the differences in our preferences for the licenses that we're willing to contribute under. I fully recognize Michael's declaration. This reply is simply an opportunity to note that Michael's response is a great example of different perspectives that people can arrive at and be completely clear about it. I completely accept and support Michael's personal view. The musing below came to mind when I saw his response. They are not meant in any way as a challenge. It is simply my own stand and entirely about what is under my own control. - Dennis RELATED MUSING I am reminded of what led me to craft, several years ago, a version of the modified BSD License for work that I was supporting. (Some of that work, under that license, has been part of OpenOffice source code bodies.) For my solo development projects, my current preference is for the Apache License (v2) because it is more specific and it makes assertions about any patents I might happen to also have. But I am also happy to work on BSD- and MIT-licensed projects and contribute back under those license. (The MPL is too complicated for my brain and I shall avoid it because it is a reciprocal license more like the [L]GPL than BSD or ALv2.) My intention is simple: To provide users of my code with very easy ways to know that their use of the code is safe and there are simple requirements for keeping it that way. The only limitation was an attribution requirement. Additional practices were recommended, but the enforceable requirement was that simple. (My favorite general copyright license is the Creative Commons Attribute (CC-By) license. The simple deed of that license is my absolute favorite.) A companion consideration for me is to assure recipients of my code that it has clean provenance and that I have demonstrated the right to license my contribution the way I do. To the extend I derive code from another source, I make it very clear what the derivation is and that my code's dependence on it is both clean in compliance with conditions that apply to the dependency. This is also an element of scholarship that is important to me and, I suspect, it is part of the reason that the licenses I do favor have been grouped as Academic Licenses by Lawrence Rosen. This attention to provenance goes beyond what licenses say. It is part of my commitment that recipients can satisfy themselves that the code is safe to use and that any limitations are clear and understandable. (I am very careful to avoid examining or using [L]GPL source code, because I don't want there to be any question that I have misappropriated any code under such a license. My handling of code provenance also supports downstream users having that assurance.) This is all on behalf of downstream recipients and the confidence I want them to have in easily determining permissible usage. Under current law practically everywhere, every developer has automatic, exclusive copyright on their own original work (when not done for hire). The developer has (apart from some special exceptions that do not concern us here) exclusive legal rights over specific uses of their work and licensing of those uses to others. So long as that is the legal foundation, those choices are ours individually. -Original Message- From: Michael Meeks [mailto:michael.me...@suse.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 13:40 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences On Mon, 2012-12-31 at 20:53 -0800, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache committers. It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I can't revoke that grant. This commonality of rights and lack of revocation is broadly the same for LGPLv3+/MPLv2 licensing too; it doesn't seem particularly distinctive to me. What most satisfies me is that those I share my work with are obliged to either contribute their changes back for the common good. Personally I am deeply suspicious of the commitment to code-sharing and community of those who will not do that, but it's easy for them not to use the code and they are more than welcome to go and not share with each other elsewhere of course :-) Indeed - if I had to contribute small changes to such a codebase where the majority of contributors -to-that-code-base- thought that this was a good way to go, I'd be inclined to muck-in with that - but that's emphatically not the case for LibreOffice. All the best, Michael. -- michael.me...@suse.com , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get
RE: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] Marketing material suggestion: Why LibreOffice?
[Resent using the list-known correct e-mail address] Is it CMIS that is being asked about? There is more information here: https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=cmis. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Immanuel Giulea [mailto:giulea.imman...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 13:21 To: Cor Nouws Cc: Boudi van Vlijmen; Marketing; market...@us.libreoffice.org; discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Re: [tdf-discuss] Marketing material suggestion: Why LibreOffice? From the 4.0 Release Notes, I understand that LO is aiming to compatible with CIMS protocol. I'll try to take a deeper look at this. Don't know enough about the CIMS protocol right now. On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote: Hi Immanuel, Thanks for your initiative and input for this! Immanuel Giulea wrote (29-12-12 22:04) What are the plans on CIMS for LO 4.0 ? https://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/**ReleaseNotes/4.0#Corehttps://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/4.0#Core I've some documentation from some years back. Will try next weeks (overloaded, sorry) to see what is up to date and then send it here. Cheers, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org - www.librelex.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by individuals in their business or institutional activities. - Dennis PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache License. DETAILS Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms. There is no transfer of ownership whatsoever. (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.) You can find the ALv2 everywhere. The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt. The key statement is this: Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant. It is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this. This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say nothing about patents). The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a reciprocal license. It does not require that derivative works be provided in source code and under the same license. The ALv2 also has no limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service. The license differences have no practical impact on end users. It does have ideological importance to contributors. Some end users may want to express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts. - Dennis -Original Message- From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences [ ... ] As I was told, LO's license will allow the developer to own the coding they are sharing with the project, where AOO's really will give that project the ownership of the coding. Whether or not the wording is stating that, that is what most developers I have talked with have told me. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more important. With regard to technicalities: It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases. Period. That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache OpenOffice. On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence. It is necessary to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is derived from ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation. (It is similar to employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.) I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on where they are willing to contribute. I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache committers. It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I can't revoke that grant. I still have all of my rights to what I contribute. That's where I stand with regard to licensing. I have quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently. - Dennis -Original Message- From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of what is the differences between them. That said, it still is all about what the developer feels is a better license for their coding. What I have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding under one type of licensing over another. If they do not like the default licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute their coding to that project. The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted? Can software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other version that then becomes part of that company's software ownership and no longer available for an open source project? On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by individuals in their business or institutional activities. - Dennis PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache License. DETAILS Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms. There is no transfer of ownership whatsoever. (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.) You can find the ALv2 everywhere. The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt. The key statement is this: Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant. It is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this. This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say nothing about patents). The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a reciprocal license. It does not require that derivative works be provided in source code and under the same license. The ALv2 also has no limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service. The license differences have no practical impact on end users. It does have ideological importance to contributors. Some end users may want to express their allegiance to one model or the other. In cultivating such allegiance, it is valuable to stick to the facts. - Dennis -Original Message- From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 12:19 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences [ ... ] As I was told, LO's license will allow
RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences
I dropped an important word: I have *no* quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently. -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 20:54 To: 'webmaster-Kracked_P_P'; discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences I think Immanuel's question about what are the differences for users is more important. With regard to technicalities: It happens that ASF projects do not accept GPL/LGPL code into their code bases. Period. That's the ASF and it applies to ASF projects, including Apache OpenOffice. On the other hand, ALv2 code is deemed compatible with LGPL/GPL by the Free Software Foundation, and it is possible for a project like LibreOffice to incorporate and/or derive from ALv2 code without consequence. It is necessary to honor the ALv2 by providing notices concerning code that is derived from ALv2 code, but that doesn't place any reciprocal obligation. (It is similar to employment of BSD and MIT license code in a GPL project.) I agree that developers have their own preferences and ideological positions on where they are willing to contribute. I contribute to Alv2-licensed projects and I agree to the ASF rules for Apache committers. It satisfies me that anyone who receives code from me can do essentially all of the things that I can do with it and they are assured that I can't revoke that grant. I still have all of my rights to what I contribute. That's where I stand with regard to licensing. I have quarrel with others who want their code to be handled differently. - Dennis -Original Message- From: webmaster-Kracked_P_P [mailto:webmas...@krackedpress.com] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 18:02 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LO vs AOO : GPL/LGPL vs ASL licences You need a degree in licensing to really know all the ins ands outs of what is the differences between them. That said, it still is all about what the developer feels is a better license for their coding. What I have heard from people is that they would prefer to provide the coding under one type of licensing over another. If they do not like the default licensing for a project, they may be less likely to contribute their coding to that project. The question, as I have heard, is if you provide coding to the LO project and AOO takes that coding - can they then relicense it under a more restrictive license that is not what the developer wanted? Can software companies take open source coding under a licensing that still gives the developer ownership, but then relicense it under some other version that then becomes part of that company's software ownership and no longer available for an open source project? On 12/31/2012 08:28 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: That is completely incorrect, no matter how many folks keep saying it. Put simply: using the LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice distributions does not raise any practical limitations on most personal use as well as use by individuals in their business or institutional activities. - Dennis PS: The preferred terms is ALv2 (ASL is something else), or simply Apache License. DETAILS Committers to Apache projects retain all rights, while granting the ASF a perpetual license to distribute under ASF-chosen license terms. There is no transfer of ownership whatsoever. (Just for a moment of irony, it was the case that Sun and then Oracle did require a [non-exclusive] transfer of ownership, as does the Free Software Foundation to this day.) You can find the ALv2 everywhere. The Committer License Agreement (CLA) is here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt. The key statement is this: Except for the license granted herein to the Foundation and recipients of software distributed by the Foundation, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your Contributions. Note that people who simply make use of the ALv2 and distribute their own (and derivative) work under the ALv2 don't have to make any such grant. It is contributors to ASF-sponsored projects that do this. This is not much difference to the e-mail grants of license that LibreOffice committers make to the TDF, except those grants name specific licenses (and say nothing about patents). The fundamental technical difference is that the Apache ALv2 license is not a reciprocal license. It does not require that derivative works be provided in source code and under the same license. The ALv2 also has no limitations on the use of a distribution or its derivative in an embedded system or inside of a [commercial] distributed service. The license differences have no practical impact on end users. It does have ideological importance to contributors. Some end users may want to express their allegiance to one model or the other
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Security Advisories
That's BS. The disclosure has been embargoed since it report to multiple security lists in January. All of the involved parties recently settled on the March 22 date because that was the earliest date Apache OpenOffice could produce either a release or a patch in First-Quarter 2012. There is no way that Apache OpenOffice forced this as an early date. Nor did Apache OpenOffice surprise anyone. There were others (*not* LO/TDF) who wanted the embargo lifted even earlier. It was certainly valuable to delay disclosure as long as possible to permit seeding of updates, but there was no way that could happen in the AOO case, since the production of a back-version patch to OO.o 3.3.0 would be and is an extraordinary event. Considering how easy it is to exploit the vulnerability with a maliciously-crafted ODF 1.2 document, there is always the fear that failure to disclose an important need to update also gives miscreants a head start at putting an exploit in the wild. The LO security team was fully aware of this and there was no pre-emption on the part of the Apache OpenOffice project. I personally want to acknowledge the forbearance of TDF and the LibreOffice security team in holding back so that the Apache OpenOffice team had this opportunity serve those who continue to operate with OpenOffice 3.3.0 and earlier releases. - Dennis -Original Message- From: lohma...@googlemail.com [mailto:lohma...@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Christian Lohmaier Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 05:24 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Security Advisories Hi NoOp, On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:56 AM, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On 03/22/2012 06:31 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: NoOp wrote: It would be nice if someone 'official' (ala TDF) could post the CVE-2012-0037 notice on both the user and announce lists. The public was not supposed to know of this CVE, people should be given time to update to the fixed version before. [ ... ] But Apache-OOo made it public on their list, so we also had to make the info available. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ooo-dev/201203.mbox/%3CCAP-ksoj7o5%2B2YH-E4XzR044V0e3YZfZvuef7eJuNGhdy%2Bk9kyA%40mail.gmail.com%3E Neither do the release logs or release notes. As above - this was intentional. No details about the security fixes until the upstream project makes the CVE public (the bug is in a third-party component that is shipped along with LibreOffice). That of course doesn't mean it shouldn't be added now that the CVE is public. ciao Christian -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Can we replace Floppy Disk
Although not paying sufficient homage to the brilliant Umberto Eco, it would seem that having good tool tips would matter for both the icons (which are often quite tiny) and for accessibility reasons. And the internationalization of the tool tips may be rather important. It would also be good that the default arrangement of the icons not change, no matter what the symbols/images are. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@openoffice.org] Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 12:21 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Can we replace Floppy Disk On 28/12/2011 Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Danishka Navin wrote: Why we still continue the Floppy Disk as the icon for Save button in LibreOffice? When was the last time you saw a phone that look like http://iphonestudio.co.uk/images/uber_iphone_phone_logo.jpg Ironically that 70 years old design is still used on IPhone and others modern cell-phone to indicate: 'telephone' Indeed. An icon is just a convention to convey a meaning and it should not necessarily be a representation of reality. One doesn't usually look for words in a document using a binocular or a magnifying glass, but people can easily associate these icons to Find. For those who want to practice their Italian or stress-test machine translation, here's a nice short and funny article from 1996 by the famous writer Umberto Eco: Icons everywhere? No thanks, I can read. http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf9597/beltrame/STAF13/eco.html Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
It is none of my business how TDF establishes its governance and qualifies its officials. Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects. I want to say two things, because I have Drew in high regard and I want to be clear about where he stands in my perspective and also my sense of the ASF philosophy and policies. First about the ASF. The Apache Software Foundation celebrates diversity and multiplicity in the world of open-source development. It is a matter of policy that forks, peers, siblings, descendents and ancestors are all just fine, open-, close-, and licensed in any manner. Apache has its own licensing regime and development approach, but it has no issue with the preferences of other projects. Now, some individuals have their personal histories, hurts, mistakes, and grievances, whatever they happen to be. But that is irrelevant to where ASF fulfills its charter to operation in the public interest. The ASF has no issue with whatever associations its contributors have beyond their contribution to Apache projects. Individuals have differences and choose to go their own way, to return, to diverge, to scratch their own itches in whatever manner works for them. I say ASF honors all of that. Secondly, I want to acknowledge Drew for his steady presence, especially in some timely moments in the run-up to the migration of the OpenOffice.org Forums under Apache hosting. Whatever Drew chooses to do, and whether he finds continued participation on AOOo inconsistent with that or not, I want it known that Drew is always welcome at AOOo, as is anyone else here, and he can come and go as he pleases with all of our blessings and thanks. There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test, and Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses. 'Nuff said? -Original Message- From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 13:31 To: board-discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee Howdy Micheal, et al, On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 16:59 +, Michael Meeks wrote: [ ... ] Having said that - we've sounded out previous appointees more informally beforehand, which is perhaps harder here. Clearly this is a responsible role, and part of our formal governance. As such, some may have queries about your involvement with the Apache project, it'd be helpful to know what your plans are there. Huh, it never crossed my mind that this would come up...ok, reality. Well, my plans - truthfully I'm not sure how my activity will progressive within the Apache OpenOffice poddling. Presently I'm not really doing anything there, my intent is to help out some with support and QA tasks - if I can incorporate that into my schedule in such a way that my efforts are useful I'll continue and if not quietly remove myself from the project management committee. Surely I could expand on my ideas of the two projects but am not at all certain that would add much to the decision process here - I will add just this, I don't feel that I would have any problem compartmentalizing my activities between the two projects and should it arise that there is some conflict would quickly take steps to resolve it, as needed. If there are any other concerns on this point please, anyone, feel free to ask and I will take the time to address them as best I can. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [NOT-SO-PRIVATE] RE: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
Now that's the most embarrassing thing I have done in a long time. Mi dispiace molto :( Please pretend I never spoke about this. -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 19:36 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [PRIVATE] RE: [tdf-discuss] user forums ? I don't want to take this response to either ooo-dev or tdf-discuss. I think your compromise is an interesting one, but I don't think it is feasible. There are political issues and technical issues. The technical issue is having a different URL that accesses the same pages be served back as if they are all at that URL, but without any other change of content. As soon as an absolute URL is followed within the forums, that is going to be the URL in the response. (Redirection doesn't work for the reasons I just gave. Framing doesn't work for lots of reasons. I tried that until I switched to add-on domains on a LAMP hosting service.) If the served content is to be changed (top banners, page footers, custom content in addition to that) there is far more server load and the problem that the service will be hosted by Apache and any terms of service will be those by the ASF. And ASF would have to operate it and have acceptable-to-it site administrators, forum administrators, etc. There is where the political and governance issues collide - OOo Marketing, TDF concern about being captive, ASF concern about the integrity of sites they operate, and the issues of degrees of distrust among the respective communities. From the TDF side alone, consider the antipathy to questions on Microsoft Office - OpenOffice.org document interchange and the hostility to Lotus Symphony issues being addressed. The anguish over the iCLA and PPMC oversight that the OpenOffice.org Forums team just went through would be nothing compared to what it would take to allow separate governance over a TDF-facing aspect of the Forums. Of course, that anguish was a tempest in a teapot. I notice that no one has been disturbed about it since the cut-over succeeded, mostly because the PPMC has far more critical matters for its attention. I favor how you are looking for compromise solutions, but multiple branding of the same site is perhaps not going to work. It would be useful to discuss this with the current OpenOffice.org Forum operators if you have not already. I am not sure how they would react to this prospect. And they might have some insight that others have not noticed. Cordiali saluti, - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@openoffice.org] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 03:18 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ? Cor Nouws wrote: Andrea Pescetti wrote (05-11-11 13:02) when it comes to user support the people involved are much more pragmatic That would be my expectation too. And then 'people involved', I would read as those with questions, answers and with moderation tasks. Yes, that was my understanding. But I'd still give a thought if we can't really avoid the massive duplication of effort and, through simple DNS tweaking, offer the same forum under the two adresses http://user.services.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.libreoffice.org/ ... Sounds as an interesting idea. Then both could redirect to say forum.opensoftwareofficesuites.org (just to give it a name now) which should have a look that is more neutral and serving both. You don't need a third neutral URL: people accessing through http://forum.libreoffice.org/ would always just see that URL, exactly as it happens now with http://user.services.openoffice.org/ and http://ooo-forums.apache.org/ (which are totally equivalent, and if you use one you don't notice that the other one exists). And branding can be adapted too, and possibly made dependent on the URL. But technology is really easy in this case: the main issue, as I wrote, is political. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http
RE: [tdf-discuss] phpbb for the official LO forums
It is the case that Stack Exchange is a challenge, although I don't recall having all that much difficulty with it. I concur completely about the desire for forums and the phpBB forums seem to work quite well (at least based on the experience with the OpenOffice.org Community Forums). It does indeed depend on the vigilance of volunteers, moderators, and administrators. But Forum governance can work very smoothly and it is a great outlet for peer support and the satisfaction of peer supporters who advance into volunteer and other categories. There is one value to Stack Exchange. It is possible to set a search on Stack Exchange questions and watch for ones that are relevant to OO.o and LO. I have done so and I see about one per day. (I have probably responded to at most two of them.) I suspect it is possible to also create a search that also finds asked and answered or still unanswered questions about OO.o and LO. More eyes on those, especially for those who are enamored of Stock Exchange, would be valuable. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Italo Vignoli [mailto:italo.vign...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2011 13:19 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] phpbb for the official LO forums On 11/4/11 7:56 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: many users have made *very* clear to me several times that they want a real forum they know, like phpBB. Otherwise, I would have simply gone with Nabble, so I'm a bit hesitant... I agree with Florian. Users want a forum, and this has been made very clear by many people. After having been accused of ignoring user needs because we didn't have a real forum, any other solution, at this stage, would be perceived in a negative way. Please remember that users are different from developers. As a user, I find stackexchange simply unacceptable (would really like to know who has had the idea). Users do not want to study the solution. They want to write a question, and get an answer. Simple problem, with a simple answer. Stackexchange makes it complex, in a useless way. I have been on the site for ten minutes, and I haven't been able to understand what I was supposed to do. I am usually considered a power user (sometimes, even a geek, at least in the marketing environment), and I don't see how something like stackexchange can be considered a better alternative to mailing lists and forums. Best, Italo -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
One touch up. There is no de.openoffice.org forum. However, there is this nice page of sources provided there: http://de.openoffice.org/foren.html. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Fabian Rodriguez [mailto:magic...@member.fsf.org] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 13:06 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ? On 10/31/2011 03:49 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hello, [...] What I took from this thread is, that there are two options: One de.openoffice.org, and the other one the LibreOffice forum. Anyone already got in touch with those folks? IIRC, there had been discussions, with some groups, and that didn't work out - but I must confess I don't know which ones. Honestly, my preference would be to have our own forum and see if it works. If not, we tried it, and we don't lose that much. What I see is a desire to proclaim ownership over such resources - when in fact what would be desirable would be to integrate existing active, useful resources to the current TDF governance structure and encourage new initiatives. My only contact at the time was with the LibreOffice forum admin, here is the message I sent back in January introducing him as a contact to maintain (this email went unanswered) - it should still be possible to contact him directly via the site contact forms: Original Message Subject:Re: [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized? Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:03:48 -0500 From: Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org Organization: Unorganized. Really. But if you must know - http://fabianrodriguez.com To: discuss@documentfoundation.org [...] I just registered to http://libreofficeforum.org and I am fairly certain it uses Drupal. I took the liberty to contact its creator and he's already indicated he's willing to collaborate: I would be glad to see LibreOfficeForum.org as the official forum. I personally am not a developer, and I don't have any official role in LibreOffice. For years I have been a heavy user of OpenOffice, spending many hours on it every day. And now I'm sure that the way forward is LibreOffice. I'm not an expert yet, just a heavy user. ;-) I created the site immediately after LibreOffice was announced, because I saw that they had no web forums, and I personally don't like mailing lists. And I know that there are several unofficial forums as well for OpenOffice (like oooforum.org), so I'm sure that this site could also occupy that role if the Document Foundation doesn't approve it officially. It appears likely that LibreOffice will continue to diverge more and more from the code base of OpenOffice, and it would be confusing to see bugs and support requests for two different products in the same forum. So for that reason I would personally recommend that the Document Foundation not continue to use the same user.services.openoffice.org forum for LibreOffice. - Sam I supposed someone from TDF / steering committee could maintain this contact more formally than me, I hope I am not overstepping anyone when doing this. Cheers, Fabian -- -- Fabián Rodríguez -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
I have no desire to get in the middle of this. I do have some interesting statistics gleaned from the current OpenOffice.org Forums for another purpose earlier today. Here is something about the scale and level of interest that exists even now, independent of the current status of releases and available downloads from whatever sources: There are 10 OpenOffice.org Community Forums, each for one of 10 supported languages: English, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Polish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Each forum is operated in its own language with administrators, moderators, and volunteers that operate in mixes of those native languages. Going to the English Forums just now, I saw these statistics: Users on-line right now: 158 of which 9 are registered. The record at one time is 362, and that was on Monday 2011-10-17 at 14:30 UTC. (I am surprised that it was so recent. And 5 of the registered users are Bots from Google, MSN, and Yahoo!) Total posts to the forum: 199,458 Total threads (topics): 40,466 Total registered users: 45,008 [registered users are like committers in the Apache sense: they can submit posts and comments and they don't require permission to do it.] The English language forum is the largest, the Vietnamese language one is the smallest, with 163 registered users. French is the next most-active, followed by Spanish. Forums for the remaining languages have between 1 and 2 thousand registered users each. NOTE: There is no German Language Forum at OpenOffice.org. I am told there is one elsewhere. It hasn't had my attention. -Original Message- From: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com [mailto:charles.h.sch...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Charles-H. Schulz Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 07:11 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ? hehe, yes, sometimes. Although believing is a matter of opinion, while Faith does (usually) not require eyes . It should be also said that I am myself a very rare forum user, but, just like the fact that I'm running Arch Linux, I also ackowledge the fact that some people use different software and ways... best, Charles. Le 30/10/2011 14:40, Marc-André Laverdière a écrit : Seeing is believing sometimes... On 30 Oct 2011 08:50, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Well, it turns out many people seem to want to use forums, and most of them are not technical, they are end users so I don't expect they have the same needs as developers. I just assume there's no fundamental truth in either mailing list or forums usage... Best, Charles. Le 30/10/2011 13:42, Marc-André Laverdière a écrit : Who in their right mind want forums? If you want exchange of ideas, mailing lists are great. ... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
Um, lest I confuse everyone: After the English language forum, the French and then the Spanish language forums are the next most active in terms of registered users and other statistics. The remainder are in the 1,000-2,000 range and then Vietnamese is the smallest. I don't have figures for the independent German language Forum. I'm confident it would create a top 4. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 15:14 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] user forums ? I have no desire to get in the middle of this. I do have some interesting statistics gleaned from the current OpenOffice.org Forums for another purpose earlier today. Here is something about the scale and level of interest that exists even now, independent of the current status of releases and available downloads from whatever sources: There are 10 OpenOffice.org Community Forums, each for one of 10 supported languages: English, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Dutch, Polish, Vietnamese, and Chinese. Each forum is operated in its own language with administrators, moderators, and volunteers that operate in mixes of those native languages. Going to the English Forums just now, I saw these statistics: Users on-line right now: 158 of which 9 are registered. The record at one time is 362, and that was on Monday 2011-10-17 at 14:30 UTC. (I am surprised that it was so recent. And 5 of the registered users are Bots from Google, MSN, and Yahoo!) Total posts to the forum: 199,458 Total threads (topics): 40,466 Total registered users: 45,008 [registered users are like committers in the Apache sense: they can submit posts and comments and they don't require permission to do it.] The English language forum is the largest, the Vietnamese language one is the smallest, with 163 registered users. French is the next most-active, followed by Spanish. Forums for the remaining languages have between 1 and 2 thousand registered users each. NOTE: There is no German Language Forum at OpenOffice.org. I am told there is one elsewhere. It hasn't had my attention. -Original Message- From: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com [mailto:charles.h.sch...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Charles-H. Schulz Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 07:11 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ? hehe, yes, sometimes. Although believing is a matter of opinion, while Faith does (usually) not require eyes . It should be also said that I am myself a very rare forum user, but, just like the fact that I'm running Arch Linux, I also ackowledge the fact that some people use different software and ways... best, Charles. Le 30/10/2011 14:40, Marc-André Laverdière a écrit : Seeing is believing sometimes... On 30 Oct 2011 08:50, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: Well, it turns out many people seem to want to use forums, and most of them are not technical, they are end users so I don't expect they have the same needs as developers. I just assume there's no fundamental truth in either mailing list or forums usage... Best, Charles. Le 30/10/2011 13:42, Marc-André Laverdière a écrit : Who in their right mind want forums? If you want exchange of ideas, mailing lists are great. ... -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] RE: [libreoffice-users] Re: OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved
orcmid comment=below / -Original Message- From: Marc Paré [mailto:m...@marcpare.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 03:35 To: us...@global.libreoffice.org Cc: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [libreoffice-users] Re: OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved [ ... ] Thanks to all the people who answered this. It seems whether LibreOffice is partially or completely compliant to OASIS version 1.2 is more complicated to establish for non-dev people. It would be interesting if OASIS had a validation site much like the W3C validation site[1] where a person could check whether their version of ODF files were OASIS-approved. It doesn't look like there is such a location on the OASIS site. Cheers Marc [1] http://validator.w3.org orcmid Yes, there is no OASIS validation tool. There is one that Oracle has. This has been discussed more on the Assessing ODF Conformance ... thread. There will never be an OASIS-approved statement for ODF documents. There is basically schema validation available, and there are a variety of schema verifiers. It would be good to work cooperatively to improve them. (Schema validity assessment is not enough to know that all of the ODF rules not baked into the schema are honored, but it is an important first-order start.) /orcmid -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5
I was hasty. The 2003 bug report is about a browser plug-in for OpenOffice.org, not ODF, and not anything like ODF embedded in an HTML5 document or whatever else the current idea turns into. The comment stream is amusing, however disappointingly predictable. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:46 To: 'discuss@documentfoundation.org' Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5 The active version of the bug report on having a browser plug-in for ODF mentioned below is now at https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=22406. I'm not certain that the current discussion is the same issue, though. -Original Message- From: Olivier Hallot [mailto:olivier.hallot@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Olivier Hallot Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 02:57 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ODF and HTML 5 Em 03-10-2011 06:07, Ian Lynch escreveu: There has been a proposal to try and get ODF recognised as an official extension of HTML5. On the face of it it sounds a good idea but I don't know enough about the details or whether this is already in progress. I guess it would require discussion with W3C, OASIS, and probably TDF and ASF as a minimum. A logical technical need could be to develop ODF rendering and editing in web browsers. To start with this might simply be a limited subset of what can be achieved in OO/LibO. Just for the summary of the issue, this has already been discussed long time ago... http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22406 But of course, there was no HTML5 at that time... Regards -- Olivier Hallot Founder, Steering Commitee Member - The Document Foundation Voicing the enterprise needs LibreOffice translation leader for Brazilian Portuguese +55-21-8822-8812 -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting...
Concerning any accessibility issues around e-mail conversations, Cor reports that an accessibility expert says the main requirement is that the text be in ASCII. Cor, does that mean Unicode (i.e., UTF-8) is undesirable? Or was the response not that technical? - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Cor Nouws [mailto:oo...@nouenoff.nl] http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/msg07718.html Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 13:15 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... [ ... ] I just checked with Peter op 't Hof, Dutch accessibility expert. He says there is no accessibility problem with mail handling. Most important is that it's ascii. (I did not ask if the people that rely on special handling for accessibility, have to do some extra tolling or settings. But I imagine the people are informed well enough themselves.) So accessibility can't be considered as a reason for different mail handling. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page?
Which RFC's are you talking about? Numbers please. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Mark Preston [mailto:m...@mpreston.demon.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 06:12 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page? How about you just read the goddamn RFC's for email protocol and stop whining about it? [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting...
Thank you for the Mailing List Netiquette page. 1. I would have preferred that the last paragraph under Top-Posting vs. Bottom-posting followed the Avoid Advocacy guidance better. On the whole, I find the page admirable, civil, and useful. 2. I have an offer. What formatting by senders will most powerfully serve those on [libreoffice-accessibility]? What do those with access limitations confirm to be the best that works for all of them? Whatever *that* is, I will do everything in my power to honor. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Italo Vignoli [mailto:italo.vign...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 09:07 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... [ ... ] I have published a comprehensive Mailing List Netiquette, which should satisfy your needs. http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette Of course, a mailing list netiquette is just a reference document, and we cannot kill people who ignore it (the majority of users ignore the simple existence of the netiquette). -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page?
Mark, I think my question was concrete and very clear: How about you just read the goddamn RFC's for email protocol and stop whining about it? Which RFC's are you talking about? Numbers please. I don't see how RFC 1885 can be meant. It says nothing about in-line, bottom, or top. Well, it says a little about how to do top-posting properly, depending on how you read this part: - If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original! I need to do that better. NetNews (NNTP) is not being used here at [tdf-discuss], and there are other things that are so 1995 in RFC 1885 (which is also not an IETF Standard, for those who like to use the standard word). But that is the extent of what it says about organizing replies to lists and news groups. (I am more concerned about [libreoffice-users] hostility, though.) There are other things, such as - Limit line length to fewer than 65 characters and end a line with a carriage return. which made a lot of sense if you were using an ASCII terminal or a TTY printer. If someone tells me it is critical to using a brailler or text-to-speech today, I will pay a lot more attention. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:m...@klomp.org] Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 11:59 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page? Hi, On Sun, October 2, 2011 20:29, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: How about you just read the goddamn RFC's for email protocol and stop whining about it? Which RFC's are you talking about? Numbers please. Please don't top-post (fixed it for you in this message). I assume the reference is to basic netiquette, which is RFC 1885. But for this list, please refer to (which is also in the mailinglist footer): http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette Thanks, Mark -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page?
orcmid comments-in-line=true / -Original Message- From: Tim Schofield [mailto:t...@weberpafrica.com] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 14:03 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Top Posting... Can we have an LO Mailing List Guidelines Page? On 30 September 2011 02:46, NoOp gl...@sbcglobal.net wrote: I must say that I *am* surprised that LO haven't the technical/political ability/tenacity to properly post information regarding this issue in the same manner as the links provided (OOo, Mozilla, Ubuntu, et al). It may be possible they have important things to do? orcmid How about a monthly FAQ message that establishes what constitutes appropriate etiquette? This should be customized for each list separately. There could be all facts applicable to the specific list, including the ever-popular unsubscribe instructions, what the subject matter of the list is, writing subject lines, finding other places to play and additional sources, etc. It would be good to say what actions arouse moderator actions and that nothing else does. /orcmid -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 Approved
The OASIS ODF 1.2 Committee Specification 01 has been successfully advanced to an OASIS Standard, http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/201109/msg00010.html. The final ballot results for approval of OASIS Standard ODF 1.2 is at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=2115. Rob Weir has a nice summary on his blog, http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/09/odf12-approved.html. He lists the names of the contributors of 1.2 from the specification. Some of those names will be familiar here. - Dennis -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?
The statement that there is perfect interoperability between older and current versions of OpenOffice and LibreOffice is incorrect. An example of that is in the handling of lists in text documents. These things happen. Some times for good reasons. Sometimes for no reason (bugs and misunderstandings), sometimes because the previous behavior was related to a bug, etc. There are also occasions when some regression happens with regard to a feature that worked differently and now doesn't work properly or maybe not as well. These impact documents in the wild no matter how much we shrug our shoulders about it. - Dennis -Original Message- From: e-letter [mailto:inp...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 01:18 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy? On 22/07/2011, Gordon Burgess-Parker gbpli...@gmail.com wrote: On 22/07/2011 15:24, e-letter wrote: Fine. People are/should be free to choose whichever program they prefer. If someone likes the interface of m$o, good for them. The point of the original post, is that priority should be for LO performance in native odf to be better than m$o performance in native m$ format (or indeed secondary odf). It does not seem right that people complain that writer does not save to m$ format well, when the statement writer creates beautiful, easily-created odf documents should be the main reason to use LO. True to a certain point. But you can't ignore the fact that 90-95% of Office suite users USE MS! They aren't going to be persuaded to migrate to LO or even OO if when they are sent documents created by MSO, they don't render properly in LO. Many have experienced errors sending m$ documents created in various m$ versions (e.g. recipient using version 1, sender using version 2). The better persuasive argument is that people observe perfect transmission of odf documents using LO. For the non-business environment, LO usage can be promoted by transmission of documents in odf; since m$ can open an odt format document, they can at least see the content. If they want to edit, recipients should be actively told about the existence of LO and encouraged to use LO. This is analogous to the scenario now where documents are transmitted in m$docx (and people complain that LO is unable to open!). I want to see increased instances of people writing to m$ mailing lists/forums (or fora?) to ask about how to open an odt file I received, and less complaints about interoperability with m$ within LO users mailing list. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] disclaimer for extension website
No, I have no experience with that. But a mirror in the United States needs to provide a place for receipt of take-down notifications. It probably needs to be a separate e-mail address because there are legal obligations around the handling of such arrivals. I see that I deleted the older parts of this thread, so I have lost Thorsten's message. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Florian Effenberger [mailto:flo...@documentfoundation.org] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 05:14 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] disclaimer for extension website Hi, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on 2011-07-21 20:27: I think the DMCA guff is avoidable as long as your extension site is not in the United States. Mirrors will have to be careful too, though. do you have any hands-on experience on how other projects deal with their mirrors in this area? Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org 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 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] disclaimer for extension website
The odds of a take-down letter seem pretty slim for LibreOffice, but in principle, yes. The intermediary (i.e., a mirror site) is saved harmless by specific provisions of the US Copyright Code, but one requirement is that they respond to take-down notices in an appropriate manner. Also, there are penalties for frivolous take-down notices, although I believe it is relatively easy for an intermediary to vacate a notice after a response from the source of the material. I am definitely not a lawyer, and I will not speculate further. That seems to be consistent with various actions I have seen on web sites that deal with these kinds of issues. Some sites have a link for DMCA notices, often at the bottom of the page. I see them from time to time, but don't know where I last saw one. I will check some obvious candidates: Ah yes, YouTube has a Copyright link at the bottom of their main page, and it links to here: http://www.youtube.com/t/copyright_center. They lay out all of the various procedures, including refutation of a notice, withdrawal of a notice, etc. They are in the thick of it, of course. In our case, I think the only concern is assertion that some software has been misappropriated or is being distributed in violation of someone's copyright. Flickr has a link that goes to the Yahoo! page on the subject: http://info.yahoo.com/copyright/us/details.html. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Florian Effenberger [mailto:flo...@documentfoundation.org] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 14:09 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] disclaimer for extension website Hi, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote on 2011-07-23 18:21: No, I have no experience with that. But a mirror in the United States needs to provide a place for receipt of take-down notifications. It probably needs to be a separate e-mail address because there are legal obligations around the handling of such arrivals. I guess this is also true for the current mirrors, when they offer LibreOffice for download? Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org 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 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Microsoft ODF 1.1 Support (was RE: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?)
I don't find it credible that Microsoft would intentionally deviate in ways to break a format, considering the level of scrutiny they receive from regulatory authorities and everyone else. I find it more creditable that they didn't do a terrific job in their first effort and it might not have been something the developers were keen about. But I have no way of knowing nor of knowing the difficulties there are for mapping in and out of their own internal processing model. They obviously can't support a feature that the native application can't support (as is the case for LibreOffice as well, of course). In any case, Microsoft produced public implementation notes about their support for ODF 1.1 in Office 2007 (it was SP2, not the SP1 I mentioned in another message). There are also implementation notes for Office 2010 support of ODF (and OOXML, etc.). My old links to the Implementation Notes failed me yesterday, but I've now learned that they've moved! (Deep linking into microsoft.com, even searching into microsoft.com, is one of my more frustrating experiences.) Here is relevant information for those interested in the details: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dmahugh/archive/2008/12/16/odf-implementation-notes-for-office-2007-sp2.aspx is a December 2008 blog post about the original implementation notes and their purpose. (There are similar notes for OOXML.) http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dmahugh/archive/2011/07/13/new-dii-website-locations.aspx explains the change in location and format. The actual notes are here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908651.aspx You can get a PDF or you can get a Zip that has *all* of the Microsoft Office standards implementations and also disclosure of the formats, etc. There are two versions of the notes for ODF, one for Office 2007, one for Office 2010. What I'd like to point out about these implementation notes is (1) they are a fledgling effort and could use a lot more work too, but (2) these seem to be the only ODF implementation notes that *anyone* has ever produced. They are nailed to the ODF specification. - Dennis DIGGING DEEPER On the web site you can explore the implementation notes for Office 2010 ODF on-line. If you go into 2 Conformance Statements in the sidebar contents, you can then go into 2.1 Normative Variations. If you get to 2.1.209 Section 8.1.3, Table Cell, you'll see that table:formula is not supported in table cells of Word documents (and I suspect the same is true for LibreOffice Write document). (The table:formula attribute is an optional attribute on any ODF table cell.) Here is the text about table:formula for Excel 2010: iii. The standard defines the attribute table:formula, contained within the element table:table-cell, contained within the parent element office:spreadsheet \ table:table-row This attribute is supported in core Excel 2010. When saving the table:formula attribute, Excel 2010 precedes the formula string with the msoxl namespace. When saving the table:formula attribute, Excel 2010 saves a formula string that follows [ISO/IEC-29500-1] section 18.17, except workbook-names are written as literal values instead of tokens given the lack of a relationship part. When loading the attribute table:formula, Excel 2010 first looks at the namespace. If the namespace is “msoxl”, Excel 2010 will load the value of table:formula as a formula in Excel 2010. When loading the table:formula attribute, if the namespace is missing or unknown, the table:formula attribute is not loaded, and the value “office:value” is used instead. If the result of the formula is an error, Excel 2010 loads the text:p element and maps the element to an Error data type. Error data types that Excel 2010 does not support are mapped to #VALUE! Note that the formula syntax and semantics used is defined in the OOXML standard (IS 29500). -Original Message- From: e-letter [mailto:inp...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 07:33 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy? On 21/07/2011, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Yes, don't confuse ODF compatibility with OpenOffice.org (or LibreOffice) compatibility. I was in the room on one occasion when Microsoft was asking for advice on their approach to ODF 1.1 Spreadsheet documents. Unfortunately, none of us blinked about how this would work for users who are unaware that ODF 1.1 has no standard for calculation formulas but think that OpenOffice.org Calc is the standard. I don't believe that ODF support was broken. The ODF support in Office 2007 is the first time that integrated ODF support appeared in Microsoft Office. I know there are bugs, some of them rather surprising/disappointing. Or deliberate..? [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more
RE: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?
Yes, don't confuse ODF compatibility with OpenOffice.org (or LibreOffice) compatibility. I was in the room on one occasion when Microsoft was asking for advice on their approach to ODF 1.1 Spreadsheet documents. Unfortunately, none of us blinked about how this would work for users who are unaware that ODF 1.1 has no standard for calculation formulas but think that OpenOffice.org Calc is the standard. I don't believe that ODF support was broken. The ODF support in Office 2007 is the first time that integrated ODF support appeared in Microsoft Office. I know there are bugs, some of them rather surprising/disappointing. - Dennis (ODF 1.2 is a different story but I don't know the current status of OpenFormula in LibreOffice and I have not seen anything on Microsoft plans in this area. I have seen a statement that Microsoft wants to present its ODF plans for the next release of Office at an April 2012 Plugfest in Brussels.) -Original Message- From: Gordon Burgess-Parker [mailto:gbpli...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 07:22 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy? On 21/07/2011 14:23, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: I am of the opinion that good inter-operability with MSO products makes it easier to attract new users and that poor inter-operability with MSO products makes it more difficult. Interestingly, I've just received an MSO .doc document. I opened it in MSO Word 2007 and did a save as odt format. I then opened that odt document in LO 3.3. The formatting was all over the shop and it was almost impossible to get it back to the original look. I then opened the .doc file directly in LO and it was almost identical to the original - needed almost NO tweaking at all. Is there a moral here? Have MS DELIBERATELY broken the odf support in Office 2007 so as to make it difficult to switch? (And don't forget the debacle with opening ODS documents in Excel - the formulae are ALL stripped out..) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows
That might make the difference. The Windows install files expand to 200 MB on disk, then the LO install itself has a 450MB footprint in C:\Program Files\. Getting the 200 MB onto an external drive (USB stick) should be no problem. In case you forgot, Also remember to empty the recycle bin of all accounts on the machine and you might want to check the Temp folders wherever they are on the Netbook. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Faure [mailto:jbf.fa...@orange.fr] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 21:19 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice deployment on Windows Hi Alexandre, Le 05/07/2011 17:48, Alexandre Chevrier a écrit : Hi, I just deployed LibreOffice on about 2000 computers to replace OpenOffice.org. I found a problem for some crappy netbook Windows XP with small hardrive... Even if I clean them up, I don't have enough space to install libreoffice (openoffice.org is already uninstalled). Maybe these netbook lack space to storeat the same time temporary files from uncompressing the LibO installer and installation files. Have you tried to connect the netbook to an usb drive before the installation and indicate this external DD as destination to decompress the installer ? I did that for my vm XP which has only a 4 Go virtual hardrive and it worked well. Best regards JBF -- Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
+1 -Original Message- From: Bernhard Dippold [mailto:bernh...@familie-dippold.at] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 12:24 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF [ ... ] If you want such a feature become true, create a team working on this topic, solve the restrictions pointed to by different people and find / convince / pay one or more developer to work on such an implementation. I could imagine an extension linking shipped fonts to the product to use them in addition to the fonts already present on the OS and adding the fonts used in a document to the document's structure. But I'm not a developer and I didn't see any developer raising his hand here in this thread. If this topic is the most important to you, you will find people to join you in maintaining the work. But you really need to start working - repeated discussions will not lead anywhere but to frustration on all sides... [ ... ] [A]s LibreOffice is a meritocracy it's easy to raise awareness on your favorite issue: Just implement it (or have it implemented) in a way that doesn't break any other part of the program. If all the external criteria are met too, it is very likely that you will be applauded for your work! Best regards Bernhard -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: OpenDocument accurate representation file format? Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
Neither PDF nor ODF were initially designed by a global consortium like OASIS. PDF and PostScript have obvious origins, as does ODF in a proposal from Sun and its contribution the XML version of a pre-ODF version of OpenOffice.org (and as does OOXML in a proposal to ECMA International from Microsoft). My friends at AIIM International and the various ISO Committees that have nurtured the International Standards for PDF formats may feel rather hurt that their efforts to produce a set of international, interoperable PDF standards is being besmirched in this manner. (My friends who work on the international standard for OOXML have learned to have thick skins.) If you think about it, most of the standards that we have now in Information Technology started because someone built something useful and it attracted enough interested attention (and a willing contributor) to evolve into a formal standard. Sometimes standards activities form in order to solve a problem in interoperability. ASCII emerged that way and now look at where we are today with Unicode, something that was not dreamed of when characters were begrudgingly granted 6 bits of precious memory space. It is early days yet for ODF. Adobe promised its hardware customers interoperability and fidelity. The specifications for Postscript were quite rigorous as are those for its derivative, PDF, for which there is also a serious interoperability and fidelity promise. This made their uptake into international standards and subsequent maintenance relatively easy. ODF is not so simple. - Dennis -Original Message- From: timofonic timofonic [mailto:timofo...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 06:38 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: OpenDocument accurate representation file format? Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader Anyway, I don´t consider PDF a proper OPEN standard, as it´s not designed by a global consortium like OASIS. What about designing a new file format for this purpose and being part of OpenDocument? Some people said DjVu being accurate but lacking some features (vectorial image support?). I'm not a developer at all, but I think OpenDocument format family should evolve in this direction some day. PDF-based ISO standard follows a lying way similar to Mono and .NET: the open standard lags behind the official implementation. This is a very dangerous trap that is still giving too much advantages to Adobe over competitors. On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Ian Lynch ianrly...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 June 2011 01:15, Sean White runicpala...@gmail.com wrote: I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years and have NEVER had it come past 200MB. ISTR a whole load of adverising crap in one large Acrobat download. Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. Not hate, irritation by misuse. Hundreds of files to download that could simply be in HTML pages (as Alexandro indicated). We get stuff originated in whatever app and distributed in pdf format when it will never ever get printed. In fact mostly you can produce a pdf from a web page if you really need to anyway. I have 100 page application forms from the EU in Acrobat that need huge hardware resources just to be usable. This stuff should be in client server databases operated through web browsers not desktop pdf files. I accept all this as transition noise as we move to mobile technologies and the web. pdf was not originally designed for these purposes, it was designed for systems putting the information on to paper and has been extended and bloated accordingly. Arguably, rather like Office applications ;-). It serves a very good purpose a standard, editable document that shows up exactly how you want it WHEREVER you are and whatever OS you are using. Not disputing that. If you want distribute a document accurately for printing on paper, use pdf. this has always been its use and so it falls in a different document category to ODF. ODF is an office format created to compete with MSO's doc, xls an ppt formats. to essentially modify the underlying purpose to make it behave more like a PDF would waste most of what we have put into it. I agree, so let's look at the future and that is the web and mobile tecnologies. How do we get LibO to the web? That would be a far better priority for the use of resources. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
RE: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
I checked the size of C:\Program Files\Adobe\Reader 9.0\ on my remaining Windows XP SP3 computer, and the size is 137MB, smaller than the 181MB for Reader 10.0 on my Windows 7 system. So I still don't have any way to account for the reported observation of a 6GB folder. I don't doubt it, I just can't attribute it to the normal installation footprint of Adobe Reader. It would be interesting to know what folders within the 6GB Reader folder are the largest and what they appear to contain. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader Sean White wrote: I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years and have NEVER had it come past 200MB. Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. Actually I don't hate PDF, I use it frequently and as such I am glad that OOo and LO have the capability of outputting in that format. My only real complaint is that Adobe has let their reader application become unnecessarily bloated, see below. [ ... ] Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB. Where do you get the 6 GB? I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level up that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click properties, that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 gigabytes. I did the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and it listed the size of that as 475 megabytes. So I am pretty much forced to believe it. Perhaps Adobe is going in the right direction again in the transition from reader 9 to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary crap. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Adobe Reader Footprint Forensics (was RE: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader ...)
Another question just occurred to me: If the installed footprint for an Adobe Reader is 6GB, how was it installed? Surely it was not by Internet Download? And that would tax the capacity of a DVD-ROM. I think it might be very important to establish what is consuming all of that hard-drive space on someone's machine. - Dennis PS: My complete installation of Microsoft Office 2010 Home and Business has a footprint of 632MB, although there are more files (about 310MB) in a separate Common Files folder shared among Microsoft applications. -Original Message- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 12:48 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: RE: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader I checked the size of C:\Program Files\Adobe\Reader 9.0\ on my remaining Windows XP SP3 computer, and the size is 137MB, smaller than the 181MB for Reader 10.0 on my Windows 7 system. So I still don't have any way to account for the reported observation of a 6GB folder. I don't doubt it, I just can't attribute it to the normal installation footprint of Adobe Reader. It would be interesting to know what folders within the 6GB Reader folder are the largest and what they appear to contain. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 11:55 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader Sean White wrote: I dont thinks thats normal somehow, i have been using Adobe Reader for years and have NEVER had it come past 200MB. Back to discussion, what's with all the PDF hate. Actually I don't hate PDF, I use it frequently and as such I am glad that OOo and LO have the capability of outputting in that format. My only real complaint is that Adobe has let their reader application become unnecessarily bloated, see below. [ ... ] Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB. Where do you get the 6 GB? I simply right clicked on the folder that contains adobe reader 9 and nothing else, the rest of the Adobe products are in a folder one level up that also contains the reader folder, in any case when I click properties, that is the size it lists, in fact to be more exact 6.2 gigabytes. I did the same with the folder containing LibreOffice, and it listed the size of that as 475 megabytes. So I am pretty much forced to believe it. Perhaps Adobe is going in the right direction again in the transition from reader 9 to reader 10, and dumping some unnecessary crap. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Embedding Goodies in the ODF Package (was RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard ... )
Well, sure, you can use an ODF package just like a Zip archive and add parts to it. The ODF Specification does not prevent that. However, the META-INF/manifest.xml file should be updated to include the addition. You can't count on any ODF consumer preserving a file that seems to have no use, even though there are those who think such accretions should be preserved. People who worry about document security, authenticity, and corporate information leaks tend to disagree and arrange to have their implementations delete material that is not recognized. There are implications for digitally-signed documents, as well. The problem with this is that now someone has to fish the fonts out of there and install them where they are actually recognized for presenting the document. If LibreOffice is updated to automate the capture of fonts and their extraction again, aren't we back to the previously-unsolved problem? At that point, it might be better to do it the other way round. Put the ODF document in a Zip archive (or tar.gz or whatever) along with the fonts and instructions on what to do with the fonts if one wants a rendition of the ODF document close to what was intended by its author. Or just separate the fonts into a handy Zip bundle that is available somewhere and perhaps put a little note in the document about what fonts work best along with information on finding and installing the font package. Observing the necessities of license conditions, of course. I am sure there are covert arrangements that could be created. I have nothing to say about that. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Steve Edmonds [mailto:steve.edmo...@ptglobal.com] Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2011 13:49 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard [ ... ] Hi. Can the ODF file format not include a container for user-data. May be specifying how that data should be catalogued but not what that data is. There is no worry about legalities in regards ODF and placing fonts in that data. Then LO would be free to place fonts in that user-data and use them as required for faithfull document transferal. Provides a solution while the debate continues. steve -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
The reason for the periodic Committee Drafts is to have reasonably-stable feature specifications that implementers can start on and confirm the specification of before we do the work to produce the final stable specification (a Committee Specification) that then goes forward as a Candidate OASIS Standard and then OASIS Standard. I think this conversation needs to be made more concrete. The inclusion of font embedding into the ODF 1.x specification is not the issue. The issue is, who has it be such an imperative that they are willing to have and document an implementation-specific solution well enough that others can interoperate with it. Then, or concurrently, it can be rolled into the ODF specification work as the basis for an independently-implementable, interoperable feature of ODF. The ODF TC does not implement anything. And it is a waste of the volunteer efforts of the ODF TC participants to specify features that no one implements or that are not practically implementable or for which there are already good-enough solutions that can be adapted. There's a hand-and-glove partnership required for a feature as substantial as font embedding. So far, I have not heard any offers. - Dennis PS: Since August 2008, when I became a member of the ODF TC, I don't recall any conclusion that font embedding is out of scope for the OpenDocument Format. I don't know what such an assertion might be based on. It is definitely the case that the ODF specification does not specify the rendering and presentation of documents. But that doesn't exclude font embedding. After all, there are already significant provisions for fonts in ODF, they just don't encompass embedding font files. -Original Message- From: plino [mailto:pedl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 01:26 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: 4. It is incorrect to presume that Font Embedding will not be in ODF 1.3 or any other. While font embedding did not make the feature cut in the prioritization for ODF 1.2, that does not mean it can't be resurrected. It is early days for ODF 1.3, which is scheduled to take a two-year development process. What is *missing* is a serious proposal that deals with the complexities, borrows from some already-worked-out approach in other software, and is brought forth at the ODF TC in an unencumbered form. Someone has to do the heavy lifting. You can also respond to the public review, although something concrete that can be used in a constructive manner would be particularly welcome. The ODF TC *has* to address every Public Review comment, although that doesn't mean we will do anything about it. Good catches will probably be saved up for an Errata or lead to action in ODF 1.3. Le 2011-06-24 13:13, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : So, let me state and restate this : ODF will not embed fonts in the 1.2, 1.3, nor in the future, because the format is not meant to focus on faithful layout rendering. Instead, PDF is meant that. ODF focuses on office document exchanges. Best, Charles. Even if font embedding is included in ODF 1.3 (which is unlikely according to Charles' statement) that will only happen in 2 years time. I think TDF and LO are betting on the wrong horse. It's not only going to start the race much later but also there seems to be no guarantee that it will run faster or better (if Charles' statement is correct they aren't even on the same race because their goals are different) In any case, if LibreOffice's goal is to be a suite that stands behind the ODF format then it should review what it promises. If it can't embed fonts, it can never be a replacement for MS Office. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Font-Embedding-in-ODF-was-RE-ANN-ODF-1-2-Candidate-OASIS-Standard-Enters-60-Day-Public-Review-tp3106577p3107356.html Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review)
+1 although it is about fidelity too, especially in things like presentations. -Original Message- From: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak [mailto:and...@pitonyak.org] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 10:27 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) [ ... ] Off hand, I would say that embedding a font is not just for readers to use. I would say that there must then be support for LO to fully use that in the editor for viewing, editing, printing, and generating other file formats that support it (such as PDF with embedded fonts). -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF
A working implementation would be great, although a working specification would be better, since the ODF can consider that while others test it for implementation. And if you want to build it into a LibreOffice as an extended use of the format, all the better, but you need to be prepared for the ODF specification to vary, cover cases that were maybe not considered, etc., and maybe even be simplified. So you don't generally want to get too far on the bleeding edge. But a feasibility demonstration would be great and would carry a lot of weight if specified in an implementation-independent manner. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Goran Rakic [mailto:gra...@devbase.net] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 13:56 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF У суб, 25. 06 2011. у 15:23 -0500, Robert Derman пише: I think it would be best if restricted fonts were simply Grayed out in the font listing and LO simply refused to use them in any way. Let us try not to repeat everything said before here: http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20370 There are many valid concerns there. But do not forget that LibreOffice is free software*, you can always hack your own patches, try to raise a bounty and engage new developers or something else... About the ODF format, there should be a process at OASIS and ODF TC how to participate. But it would probably be more effective if there is a working code for the proposed features, not just a tagline let us do it. Trying not to speak in anybody's name, if this becomes implemented in LibreOffice and community wants it, TDF can probably advocate it officially inside the ODF TC. *) free as in freedom Goran Rakic -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 ...)
All right, let's put a stake through the heart of this puppy. I just created three documents. One is pretty large so I put them at Windows SkyDrive: https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=33894f6489994ba7resid=33894F6489994BA7!371 1. A Microsoft Word 2010 1-page document with a small image and completely using the Linux Biolinum G font, a GPL-ed font that came along with LibreOffice 3.3.2, the one I use for ODF production work. The document is almost 4 MB because I asked Word to embed every font (it included 9, including the Biolinum G). This is the Word document whose name begins with Fonts-2011-06-25-18100-.. 2. An OpenOffice Text document produced from the Word document. It has no fonts and it is quite small. If you open it in LibreOffice 3.x, you may encounter a complaint that the file is corrupted. If so, let LibreOffice correct the document and it should be fine. (There is some breakage between some ODF 1.1 producers and some ODF 1.2 (anticipatory) consumers and we need to sort that out. 3. A PDF. It doesn't seem to have the fonts either. Apparently the export didn't conclude that any were needed. I gave it permission to export the ones it could. Alternatively, it might have exported just what was needed. I can't tell. - Dennis -Original Message- From: charles.h.sch...@gmail.com [mailto:charles.h.sch...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Charles-H. Schulz Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 08:33 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Font Embedding in ODF (was RE: ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review) Le Sat, 25 Jun 2011 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), plino pedl...@gmail.com a écrit : Charles-H. Schulz wrote: No it doesn't. Of course it does. Maybe you don't use it or don't know how to do it. But don't say it doesn't. So are you saying your word documents embed fonts on a daily basis? I've never seen any similar documents. You get the impression of that -maybe- because on a windows to windows environment everybody uses fonts that are already available on the system. Of course, ODF (and others) do keep the reference of the font name and if I have the same font on my system it will try to reuse the same font. But just for reference: except for specific cases: office document formats including MSOffice DON'T include fonts. PDF does (there are less used formats) and that's what it's know for. Charles-H. Schulz wrote: But I think we're also missing the point if -let's say we were to design a brand new office file format that embeds or does not embed fonts- why should anyone be using it? Choosing a format that's not the dominant format is already a reasoned choice, oftentimes an act of departure from the dominant player, and sometimes a political act. I think you are missing the point: it's not simply a matter of the embedded fonts. If the brand new file format that you are creating wants to attract users it can never have less features than the one it wants to replace. Or at least it can not miss critical features. Network effect. Do you have any idea how many superior formats have been created but that never got adopted? Even if people want to switch for political reasons, I'm sure they don't want their work crippled... They don't, that's true. But don't mix the various purposes of formats. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] ANN: ODF 1.2 Candidate OASIS Standard Enters 60-Day Public Review, prerequisite for balloting as OASIS Standard
Details here: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/201106/msg00061.html This is a public review. From the announcement, which provides all details on locating the specification and background on the process: Comments may be submitted to the TC by any person through the use of the OASIS TC Comment Facility which can be located via the button labeled Send A Comment at the top of the TC public home page, [at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office] or directly at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/index.php?wg_abbrev=office Comments submitted by TC non-members for this work and for other work of this TC are publicly archived and can be viewed at: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/ Woo Hoo!! - Dennis -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
My Windows 7 C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe\Reader 10.0\ folder is 181 MB. Where do you get the 6 GB? -Original Message- From: Robert Derman [mailto:robert.der...@pressenter.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 21:24 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader [ ... ] What I meant by HUGE when I referred to Adobe Reader was the more than 6 Gigs of hard drive space it takes up! By contrast all of the LibreOffice suite of programs takes up 475 Megs of space. That means that a mere reader takes up more than a dozen times the space of an entire office suite. If that isn't mega-bloat I don't know what is. It has been a long time, but I seem to remember Adobe Reader only taking 12 Megs of space at one time. It used to come included on almost all driver disks, now it is just too big for that. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [steering-discuss] Joining the OASIS Consortium
Since I am receiving reminders about my individual membership in OASIS, I can answer that question: No. There is no specific enrollment period or fixed calendar of memberships. Annual memberships are for the full year from the day a membership application is accepted. Since you are talking about an institutional membership, there will need to be an official who approves the participation of others on individual OASIS Technical Committees. Also, there are IP-policy conditions that apply to membership and contribution to each OASIS TC. TC members affiliated with TDF should not have a conflict with requirements that they are subject to as a condition of their employment elsewhere. I also don't know how closely associated someone must be with the TDF to be able to participate under the TDF membership in OASIS. If that is not clear from the application information for organizations, I am sure there are contacts who can answer any questions about that. - Dennis -Original Message- From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 11:24 To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Joining the OASIS Consortium On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 20:18 +0200, Florian Effenberger wrote: Hi, Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-06-18 16.50: I think that if we go down that path we'll lose some valuable time revoting on it. The SC's mission ends when the BoD is elected and that is very clear, but until then, if decisions have to be made we should not refrain from making them. (Although I understand the need not to rush anything - but joining the OASIS is not exactly a rushed decision). well, I have no problem with deciding, but still, decisions are not binding for the future BoD, so we should keep that in mind. :-) Hi, Just wondering, is there some membership window, a period of time each year when new memberships are accepted at OASIS? Is that an issue here? Thanks Drew -- 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 -- 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: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
Ignoring the repetition on who is entitled to source code and how they are told about it, I would like to know the answers to some very specific, tangible matters closer to home. My question is basically whether the terms of a GPL license attached to a software distribution are applicable to that software distribution, not just downstream derivatives of it. I assume the answer is yes. - Dennis WHY I ASK I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer. I am looking for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed (en-win-x86). Looking at the Help | License Information ... tells me about licenses and where to find them, but nothing about source code. If I give this to my friends, none of them will see anything about source code either. If I examine the license, I see that LGPL3 incorporates terms of the GPL3 by reference, and license follows immediately thereafter. The LGPL3 has definitions about source code and it being conveyed. The GPL3 has the details. The preface to the GPL sys that Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. Section 6, which applies to the non-source form of the LibreOffice 3.3.2 that I installed specifies a number of ways that source code is still to be made available. 6(d) seems applicable to the way I obtained LibreOffice 3.3.2 by download: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. ... SO WHERE IS IT? I know of no offer conveyed with the code. If I go back to the site, all I see are 3.3.3 Final and 3.4.0 Final. I see nothing that would allow me to re-retrieve or find the source of the 3.3.2 that I have in my possession. If I follow the Download the source code to build your own installer (why does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing. Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's. Well, maybe that qualifies. Maybe not. But what about for my 3.3.2? AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way? -Original Message- From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 13:49 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice) On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:59 PM, BRM bm_witn...@yahoo.com wrote: - Original Message From: Simos Xenitellis simos.li...@googlemail.com ... Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make the effort to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views there. Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common misconception on the issue. I have moved the discussion to the gpl-violations legal mailing list, http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2011-June/002872.html Anyone can subscribe at http://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal Simos -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice))
I didn't say I didn't know how to do it. I didn't say I wanted to build it. This is about honoring the spirit of the free software promise. It is not even about building the code. People may want to do any number of things with the source code (inspect for bugs, for example). I *did* say I don't see where the distro tells me how to find it and I don't see where the download page lets me find it in the same way (and now I can't even find the version that I am running). 20-21 tar.bz's are also rather intimidating, but way better than nothing. So, where is the link on the web site that would let me find the version I am running and the source code for it? (The same question for dependency derivatives is a bonus question.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 16:31 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Availability of source code (Was: Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)) On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [ ... ] I have a copy of LibreOffice 3.3.2 installed on my computer. I am looking for any place that I am offered access to the specific (or, indeed, any) source code for the LibreOffice 3.3.2 distribution that I have installed (en-win-x86). Admittedly, I never checked the UI text as to where you can get the source code. To build LibreOffice, I would simply follow the instructions at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build which cover different operating systems. [ ... ] Your question is actually about whether we can make the Help→License information more informative so that users who would like to build LibreOffice, will get directed to the How_to_build page. [ ... ] If I follow the Download the source code to build your own installer (why does that have to be the reason?), I see a set of logs that tell me nothing. Under 3.4.1.1, 3.4.0.2, and 3.3.3.1 I see lists of 20-21 tar.bz2's. Well, maybe that qualifies. Maybe not. But what about for my 3.3.2? Indeed, the 3.3.2 version is not showing, because there are newer versions (3.4.1, 3.4.0 and 3.3.3) and the 3.3.2 does not fit to be in that page. You can get 3.3.2 files at http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/ http://download.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice/old/src/ As I said earlier, if you really want to compile, you would go for the 'git repositories' and the instructions at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build AND ABOUT THOSE DEPENDENCIES If any of the listed dependencies also have derivatives used, is there some place where, ahem, those modified sources are available in some suitable way? See the dependencies at http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/How_to_build#Dependencies Simos -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?
Well, it is not the OCA or ICLA that is passed onward. So the question is, I think, is there any difference in how the OCA allowed Oracle to license the contributions and how the ICLA allows Apache to license contributions? There is one obvious difference: Apache can't enter into a private license nor create a sublicense that is incompatible with the license they are given in the ICLA. Oracle has the power, under the OCA, to create whatever licenses it wanted and even make further transfers of copyright. In practice, the LGPL license from Oracle and the ALv2 license from Apache both permit sublicensing, but the ALv2 is more permissive in lacking the reciprocity requirement. As Thorsten has observed, it means he gives up more exclusive rights if he can't count on reciprocity and wants to require it. I don't agree that both allow the receiving entity to issue the contribution under any license they want to. Definitely for Oracle but I don't think so for Apache, even though the ICLA does not identify the license Apache will use. (You have to trust that the foundation rules for Apache prevent the obvious transgressions and they must be aware what some dramatic change of direction would do with regard to their community base.) IANAL and I don't know whether sublicensing of ALV2 licensed code as LGPL falls under the notion of sublicensing. But I suspect the requirement that the ALv2 license/notice be attached is not something a sublicense can work around. That is, a sublicense can't be *more* permissive than the license that is being sublicensed. I could find no precedent for that in examples of sublicensing (admittedly, using Web sources of questionable virtue). - Dennis -Original Message- From: Bernhard Dippold [mailto:bernh...@familie-dippold.at] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 04:18 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing? Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all thanks for pointing to this very topic. So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably minor consequences in code usage: While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts. Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single case authorization) they want to. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Why is that a poor picture? I am confident that some users choose Open/LibreOffice distributions for ideological reasons. I also think many adopt software because they have a need that it satisfies in their use of it in creating and interchanging documents and the FOSS assurance has little meaning for them. It simply is not relevant in their world. What's poor about that? Is it more important that LO be a political weapon than it be useful to people who have work to do? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Augustine Souza [mailto:aesouza2...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 07:18 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice On 6/15/11, Allen Pulsifer pulsi...@openoffice.org wrote: ... End users do not care about who's right, who's wrong, who's been slighted, who is more pure, etc. They just care about products and technologies that are going to meet their needs. Painting quite a poor picture of end users? Are they really like that? Or do we say so to support our argument? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
I am not happy with Allen's characterization of Simon's participation. I suspect the difference is that Allen put himself on the list of initial committers and is now on the podling PPMC at Apache. Simon did not choose to put himself on that list. That's Simon's business. Simon has been a vocal, active participant in the run-up to the Apache Incubator vote to accept the Oracle contribution and on the public lists that are now established for the Apache podling. I, for one, welcome any contributions that Simon cares to make, and that Allen will be making. I should point out that it is a waste of time to become an initial committer and member of the podling PPMC with the goal of canceling Rob Weir's (or anyone else's) vote, because there is rarely any voting, *especially* on technical matters. I am learning as a newcomer there that Apache is a *serious* inclusive meritocracy and it is better to look at it as there being no one who has a privileged seat at the table. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Simon Phipps [mailto:si...@webmink.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 09:37 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice On 16 Jun 2011, at 17:31, Allen Pulsifer wrote: Allen Pulsifer wrote: As an experienced person in the open source world, I would think you know by now that it is a lot easier to influence a project when have a seat at the table and are working from the inside rather of the outside. You could have also been one of those persons with a seat at the table, and together, we would have had twice the voice as Rob Weir. Simon Phipps replied: Excuse me? What are all the contributions I am making on that list? Chopped liver? Pretty much, yes. As a person who chose not to have a seat at the table, you are serving up chopped liver for the people at the table to taste and decide whether they want to eat it. That's a fair analogy, I think, if it's the one you want to use. Given I've showed up in both conversations at Apache and made actual tangible contributions of at least the same scale as yours, I honestly have no idea what you are getting at, Allen. Thanks, S. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
+1 -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:37 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 13:40, Pieter E. Zanstra pie...@zanstra.eu wrote: As an interested user I see a lot of noise passing by on this topic. I must say I am totally unimpressed. What counts for me is reality, not dreaming in the cloud. I was used to getting no response from Microsoft on my bug reports. I did join in a bug report in OOo about table autoformats not being saved properly. I did approach Sun and Oracle directly about this silly bug that has been sitting untouched since 2008 in the OpenOffice bug repository. I did not get any answers from Sun/Oracle either. I resubmitted the original bug report to the new TDF bug repository. There, within a quarter of a year, it has been evaluated and elevated to the Easyhack status. I would not be surprised if that problem would be solved by the end of this year. They have already done quite a pile of cleaning code and bug fixing. My confidence as a user is with them. The indians have to prove as yet. That is what matters at the end of the day. Absolutely that is what matters. Whether the caretakers place *you* at the forefront. Big faceless corporations generally don't, while smaller communities usually do. I believe the (recent) discussion stemmed from whether end-users care about the *license*. They mostly want a great product and a responsive caretaker. That's it. I can guarantee you that my mother, father, brother, sister, and the rest of my extended family would give me a blank stare if I told them they needed to use Free Software rather than proprietary. Crickets would echo in the room. There *are* end-users who want Free Software. Many of you care strongly about it, and seek out Free Software. Granted. But when you look at the tens of millions (hundreds?) of OOo and LO users, they simply don't care. Building and providing LibreOffice is a fabulous thing for people who really care about Free Software. LO has an important place in our software ecosystem. I just don't think projecting that philosophy onto the typical end-user makes sense, however. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
I want to clear up one thing (I hope): Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses? As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with. Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code (developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do not have to operate under Free Software principles. That understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with). If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to my code that they make. There have been licenses like that, some of which were satisfied by patches being provided and not the whole source of the downstream use of the source code, possibly embedded in a proprietary software product. Not sure how that sort of thing is enforceable, but as a copyright holder I think that comes under the exclusive rights that are mine, to be licensed as I see fit, at least in the US. - Dennis PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a compulsory condition and it would be interesting to see what the FSF would say in the event someone sublicensed a GPL derivative in that manner. I suppose there could be a similar sublicensing of an APLv2 derivative, but not sure the Apache Foundation would have anything to say about it at all so long as the conditions of ALv2 were otherwise satisfied. -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:05 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice Ben explained much of this already, but let's see if I can add some more: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 14:46, plino pedl...@gmail.com wrote: Greg Stein wrote: As Ben has explained later in this thread, you never had that right. Ergo, Apache has not removed any rights from You. This is why I think the statement removes rights from people's contributions is wrong, or there is some other right that I'm unaware of. GPL does say that if you make a derivative work and distribute it to someone else, you must provide that person with the source code under the terms of the GPL so that they may modify and redistribute it under the terms of the GPL as well. The key thing being that person. That person is most likely not You, the developer who is contributing to the software. Thus, You won't get those changes unless that person decides to pass them back to you. So you don't necessarily have a right to the code. You are relying on the goodwill of that person to help you out. Of course, they might not even know who you are. They might not care. They might not ever ask for the source code. The Apache license says you don't have to distribute under the same license and therefore you don't have to provide the source code. Correct. In the context of a public free Office Suite isn't that the same? If under GPL you MUST release the source as GPL, isn't that in practical terms the same as releasing the modifications you made??? Nope. Again, because I only need to release it to the people that I gave a binary to. That is not the same as the community making the software. Also, recognize that I might make a TON of changes. Create a massively superior product. And then use it *internally*. I might not ever distribute my work outside of the company. Or... hey... I might put a web interface on the front of that Office Suite, and run a web-based version of it. That isn't releasing the software to anybody, so all of that awesome work that I did does not have to be released. (see the AGPL if you want to solve this scenario) Doesn't this mean that changing the license to Apache removes the right to have access to the modified source code if a company so chooses? As a developer, you never had those rights to begin with. Apache is not removing any rights from You. People who use Apache code (developers, admins, end-users, hobbyists, companies, etc) have more rights: they can decide whether to return changes or not. But they do not have to operate under Free Software principles. That understandably bugs people. But as a developer, Apache is not reducing your rights (the original phrase that I took issue with). Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more:
RE: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?
+1 -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:58 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing? On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 07:17, Bernhard Dippold bernh...@familie-dippold.at wrote: Hi Greg, Dennis, Friedrich, all thanks for pointing to this very topic. So if I understand it right, the difference is a legal one with probably minor consequences in code usage: While with ICLA the contributer keeps the copyright on his own (and thus needs personal legal assistance or an additional contract in case of copyright infringement claims) the OCA / JCA allows the entity sharing the copyright to behave as copyright owner in legal conflicts. I'm not familiar with the legal mechanics of OCA and JCA. For Apache's ICLA and process... yes. The short answer is that a third-party would not be able to sue *you* based on software they get from the Apache Software Foundation. The Foundation is set up to establish a trail of responsibility between the committers and the Foundation itself. We use the word oversight when establishing that linkage. The committer places code into the repository under the oversight of the Project Management Committee (PMC). Thus, the PMC has instructed the committer to do this, rather than the committer acting as a free agent. The PMC's actions are reviewed by the Board of the Foundation. Thus, the Board is providing oversight and accountability to the PMC. The PMC is operating at the direction and wishes of the Board. The Board represents the Foundation itself, and uses this chain of oversight to establish responsibility. If a third party attempted to sue You for (say) some violation of their copyright, then the Foundation can step in and say we are responsible. Bernhard was acting according to our wishes. sue us, not him. The theory is that a judge will then remove you from the case, and put Apache in there. This is why we have the ICLA and why we structure the Foundation in a specific way. The Foundation exists to create a legal umbrella for all of its 3000 committers. Those committers should remain safe from third parties. People simply committing into a repository do not necessarily have this safety. There is no chain of oversight that allows an individual to escape responsibility. This problem exists across the entire FLOSS landscape. The saving grace is that we simply don't see these types of lawsuits. So the Apache legal umbrella is nice, but the chances of needing it are vanishingly small. Both allow the entity to release the code under any license (or single case authorization) they want to. Yes. I don't want to discuss the possibility of positive or negative impacts of single sided license changes in comparison to updateable plus licenses. GPLv2 or newer leaves you with the hope that the FSF will continue to look after *your* interests with your code. Linus Torvalds didn't believe the FSF would do the right thing for the Linux community, so he switched all the headers to GPLv2. In retrospect, that was a smart thing to do because he very much disagrees with some aspects of the GPLv3. But yes: entities such as Oracle and Apache, having full licensing rights, could apply licenses that the community disagrees with. Personally, I trust Apache do it right :-) But is there a difference in licensing and code usage by third parties between OCA and ICLA (except the fact, that they can use Apache licensed code without being forced to negotiate with and probably pay fees to Oracle if they don't want to contribute back)? Nope. In both cases, third parties are getting code from Oracle or Apache, under whatever license that entity provides. How the code arrived (via OCA or ICLA) is immaterial. Both entities could provide the license under ALv2, and you'd have the same rights to that code. Cheers, -g -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
I'm sorry. I have IBM Lotus Symphony 3.0 with fixpack 2 installed on my computer and I didn't pay anyone for it. It is free to download. Registration required. That's it. If I want support, that is different. Not much different than with Sun Star Office and Oracle Office, actually. True, they have not offered me the source code. But still, free as in free beer was enough for my purposes. - Dennis -Original Message- From: BRM [mailto:bm_witn...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 14:50 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice [ ... ] Wrong. OOo, TDF/LO, etc may be making a public release. IBM, for example, may not. They are only releasing to people who _pay them_ for the product. _ONLY_ those people (the ones they specifically distributed the product to) are required to be able to receive it - not necessarily the developer they drew the code from. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing?
Here's my sense of how they are different things: The ICLA is not a copyright assignment of any kind. It is only a license and your affirmation that you have the right to grant it. The OCA non-exclusively transfers a property right. The license doesn't work that way. My understanding is that differences include what can be sold/transferred and who can sue someone for infringement. With regard to copyright, the Apache ICLA is very much like the license that the terms of use for the openoffice.org site assert that you are providing in making contributions on the site (without having entered into any OCA). That is not a copyright assignment either. (Copyright assignments *must* be made in writing in the United States.) The ICLA also stipulates a grant of Patent License. (So does the OCA. Not a transfer, a license.) The ICLA also applies to contributions other than software. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Friedrich Strohmaier [mailto:damokles4-lis...@bits-fritz.de] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 17:15 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] OCA vs. ICLA: two names - one thing? Hi Greg, *, sorry, forgot to post links.. Friedrich Strohmaier schrieb: I pull this in a new thread, as it is basic for understanding the difference between OCA and ICLA. Greg Stein schrieb: [..] Let's also not forget that neither TDF nor the ASF require copyright assignment. The copyright remains with the contributor. Same thing with OCA. You don't/didn't sell your copy right instead it was shared. see here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Joint_Copyright_Assignment http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Oracle_Contributor_Agreement http://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-licensing.html#usinglicenses http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/oca.pdf [..] sorry for avoidable noise.. Gruß/regards -- Friedrich Libreoffice-Box http://libreofficebox.org/ LibreOffice and more on CD/DVD images -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
It seems very clear that the Apache Foundation will not do that -- re-license. They have neither desire nor self-interest in so doing, based on what their high-level participants have said. However, by reintegrating the Apache OpenOffice.org bits, LibreOffice can do it themselves. It would require carefully managing the code provenance, because of the restructuring and patches that LibreOffice has already done. But it can be done that way. In that respect, the sooner the Apache OpenOffice incubator has the OpenOffice.org someplace under the AFL 2.0 license, the sooner that is useful to you for your own relicensing purposes. (I have no idea why you want MPL, and whether there is any clash with the patent terms in AFL 2.0, but I don't need to know.) - Dennis -Original Message- From: Marc Paré [mailto:m...@marcpare.com] Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 15:20 To: discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: [tdf-discuss] Re: RE : Re: RE: Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice Le 2011-06-04 17:29, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : Hi *, On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Sam Rubyru...@apache.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Ian Lynchianrly...@gmail.com wrote: I should think there is probably broader commercial or legal reason for Oracle to hold on to the copyright such as tax relief or just in case it *might* somehow become valuable. Oracle offered to transfer the copyright, and I said that it was neither necessary nor required. I second that. the TDF would have been more than pleased if Oracle would have re-licensed the code under LGPL+MPL combination (+apache and whatever). Copyright ownership is not required at all. Neither for Apache, nor for TDF. ciao Christian Could not Apache Foundation do the same thing once it got the code? Cheers Marc -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
