from:"Charles\-H . Schulz"

Todd,

Le Mon, 3 Jan 2011 09:50:36 -0500,
todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Michael Wheatland
 mich...@wheatland.com.au wrote:
  On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 2:43 AM, Zaphod Feeblejocks
  zapho...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 2 Jan 2011 at 9:59, Craig A. Eddy wrote:
 
  I also agree that ANY write-to docx should be an add-on, and not
  part of the vanilla release.
 
  Hi Craig,
 
  I have a concern about the Addons.  In my 10+ years of using
  OpenOffice/StarOffice, the inclusion of addons was a great idea.
   However, the marketing of addons was not so good - hidden away in
  a place that you can find once, but not so easily find again.
 
  Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?
 
  Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they know
  functionality can be extended?
 
  Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?
 
  Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a pack of
  the most popular ones be compiled?  Could the most-frequent-addons
  pack even be an optional extra included with the download?
 
  Zaphod,
  I have some good news for you. The website team is already tackling
  this with the Drupal implementation.
 
  In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
  earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
  The website team has been busy building the site over at a temporary
  domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
 
  Although the site theme is only temporary, you can see most of the
  site sections operating. The site will include an 'Extensions
  Library' designed similar to the Firefox addins site.
 
  It is not finished but you can see our progress here:
  http://www.libreofficeaustralia.org/download/extensions
  The implementation of categories will be the next step, followed by
  making the layout of the displays a little more beautiful.
 
  The development site is almost ready for beta testers, so if you
  wish to have a look and suggest any changes please feel free to let
  us know over on the website mailing list.
 
  Michael Wheatland
 
 So libreoffice is not planning on using the already-established
 opendesktop.org websites for distributing its extensions?
 

At this stage no change has been planned, we are using the opendesktop
infrastructure but for the extensions web site no plans of any sort has
been made. (We should, though!)

Best


-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Michael,

Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:28:58 +0930,
Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au a écrit :

 On 03/01/2011 8:46 PM, Charles-H. Schulz 
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 
  Hello everyone,
 
  Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:58:18 -,
  Zaphod Feeblejocks zapho...@gmail.com a écrit :
 
   On 3 Jan 2011 at 17:29, Michael Wheatland wrote:
  
 Could addons be clearly signposted on the main page?

 Could first-time users be taken to the addons page, so they
 know functionality can be extended?

 Could addons be clearly posted in the menus?

 Could the frequency of downloading addons be counted and a
 pack of the most popular ones be compiled?  Could the
 most-frequent-addons pack even be an optional extra included
 with the download?
   
Zaphod,
I have some good news for you. The website team is already
tackling this with the Drupal implementation.
   
In case you are not aware the current site at libreoffice.org is
earmarked for an upgrade (as per the steering committee advice).
The website team has been busy building the site over at a
temporary domain www.libreofficeaustralia.org
  
   Great work!
 
  While I do thank Michael for its great work I believe there's a
  slight misunderstanding here: Michael's own exploratory work might
  be used one day for the LibreOffice website, but it is at this
  stage not considered for an upgrade.
 
  best,
  Charles.
 
  
   zf
  
 
 
 
  --
  Charles-H. Schulz
  Membre du Comité exécutif
  The Document Foundation.
 
 Charles,
 Far from being 'my' exploration work, the majority of the website
 team has contributed towards this project after the Steering
 Committee discussion and the outcome of which, I am paraphrasing, to
 implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org with a view to go with
 Drupal long term.

to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to mean
anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather: with the
possible option of Drupal in the long term. 

 
 The progress made by many of the contributing members has been
 fantastic, and although I have been the most vocal of the website
 development team regarding the implementation of a community building
 and tooling site there are many other people who have done fantastic
 work.
 
 I will be applying to the Steering Committee soon to set a target
 date for implementation in order to focus the website team on a
 tangible goal.

Well there will be no target, I'm afraid. 

 
 There does seem to be a little bit of misinformation out there
 regarding this SC decision, but it is quite clear if you listen to
 the decision outcome statement on the recording of the SC meeting.
 
 I am sure this will be clarified when the website team applies for a
 further decision on implementation.


a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your enthusiasm
leading to understand things the way you would like them to be :-). At
this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans to move to Drupal;
there seems indeed to have been some early misunderstanding, but if you
wish the SC will clarify its position (again) .  But given that I'm a
member of the said SC, it might be useful to you to take my words into
account.

Best,
Charles. 

 
 Michael Wheatland
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Hello Michael,

Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930,
Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au a écrit :

 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
  to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to
  mean anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather:
  with the possible option of Drupal in the long term.
 
 Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org

ah, okay. 

 
  a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your
  enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them
  to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans
  to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early
  misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position
  (again) .  But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be
  useful to you to take my words into account.
 
 To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
 statement from the Steering Committee decision.
 
 The conversation on the conference call:
 I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
 planning in the next month regarding additional services...

right.

 There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
 sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
 Drupal as the long term solution.

I might repeat Cor's statements here, but many people voiced their
opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution
means: many people think we should decide whether Drupal would be a
long term solution . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision
requesting the use of Drupal. 
 
 
 The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
 the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
 with plans to migrate to Drupal later on.
 
 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592

plans... later on. Not now let's rush towards creating the
definitive Drupal website...

 
 I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the
 outcome 

Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for
the long term. 

 and the website team has had a large group of people (larger
 than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom
 might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time.
 Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to
 involve Native Language teams and other functional teams.

And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which
has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal
project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just
an option. 

 
 I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not
 just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement
 as communicated back to the website mailing list.
 
Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive
statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option.

Best,
-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Barbara,

Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,
Barbara Duprey b...@onr.com a écrit :

 On 1/3/2011 3:06 AM, Davide Dozza wrote:
  Il 02/01/2011 20:41, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:
  [...]
 
  inconsistencies. However, it's fortunately or unfortunately,
  should not be a problem: OOo  LibO implement the existing and
  used version of MS *proprietary formats* used in MS Office 2007
  and 2010 that are called OOXML. They're not exactly the ISO
  standard, far from that; feel free to call them transitional if
  you wish, but it's very much of a grey area and I just call them
  MS propietary formats. So what LibO does is to offer convenience
  to its
  This is the point. MS Office 2007 and 2010 doesn't implement ISO/IEC
  29300 also called OOXML.
 
  Please change the subject because it's completely messing. Call
  simply MS XML proprietary formats.
 
  Davide
 
 They don't implement the Strict version -- but I think we'd have a
 hard time arguing that they don't implement the Transitional
 version that must also be considered standard, it's documented in
 that specification, and MS wrote it to cover themselves. If we called
 these formats proprietary, we could get into real trouble.
 

Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really,
Transitional OOXML was an honourable way out for MS at the ISO's JTC 1.

Basically the deal was that the strict OOXML was rumoured to be clean
(although I don't think it is and I'm not the only one) while the
transitional was offering more features and was more in line with the
existing and used formats used by MS Office 2007 and 2010. At this
stage we have no evidence that the transitional OOXML and the formats
used in MS office suites match, and I'm not even saying this out of bad
will against MS: it's a really important question. 

best,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons

Michael,

2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au

 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl wrote:
  Michael Wheatland wrote (04-01-11 02:59)
 
  If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no
  confusion about any issues.
 
  No, to me this is an obvious example of someone apparently unable to
  understand,

 Please do not result to personal insults.

  working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS
 
  using silly arguments,

 If you are going to quote my emails, ensure you do not 'snip' parts
 which can be taken out of context.


  Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for
  the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan.
 
  and only interested in his own plan.

 I am interested in the best outcome for the community.
 My skill set is limited, as I am a chemical engineer, not a
 programmer, who is putting time and effort into this community part
 time.

 I think the whole website team is doing a great job, I am contributing
 everything that I can to help the community.
 I would appreciate a little more respect.




Certainly. What we -the SC- would like you to understand is that the Drupal
option is just this; an option. Right now, we have  one website to work on:
it turns out it uses Silverstripe. I can understand that some people like
Marc feel surprised or frustrated about it, but frankly it's not like
several people haven't tried to remind everyone what was the actual choice,
but to at least my great surprise I also felt that informal messages about
the actual validity of Drupal as a firm choice were simply disregarded. I
hope it will be very clear from now on that the website we are working on is
the actual website, developed under Silverstripe.

As for Marc's earlier message: the decision was to use Silverstripe. Trying
to get around it by pointing out that more volunteers want to work on a
different CMS overlooks two things:
- the legitimity of the decision : you basically claim that no matter what
your representatives will choose you'll do what pleases you first (and what
pleases you in this context does not seem to be LibreOffice but Drupal)
- the process: there was a call for consultation about a platform with two
last remaining options. One was chosen; claiming the other one was more
popular is a moot point as it means all the other options and their
supporters never matter.

Last but not least, I believe one of the reasons we created LibreOffice was
precisely to avoid arbitrary decisions in favor of directions and decisions
everyone understand and to avoid ineffectiveness. We have rules, we cannot
change them because a few out of many are ready to sacrifice the whole to
see their own options prime over everything else.

best,
Charles.






 Thanks,
 Michael Wheatland

 --
 Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
 Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
 *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format)

Hello Michael,

2011/1/4 Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au

 On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
  Hello Michael,
 
  Le Tue, 4 Jan 2011 01:26:09 +0930,
  Michael Wheatland mich...@wheatland.com.au a écrit :
 
  On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Charles-H. Schulz
  charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
   to implement the Silverstripe CMS on Drupal.org does not seem to
   mean anything to me. With a view to go with Drupal was rather:
   with the possible option of Drupal in the long term.
 
  Sorry, I meant to write libreoffice.org not drupal.org
 
  ah, okay.
 
 
   a little bit of misinformation, Michael, is perhaps your
   enthusiasm leading to understand things the way you would like them
   to be :-). At this stage, I don't believe we have any clear plans
   to move to Drupal; there seems indeed to have been some early
   misunderstanding, but if you wish the SC will clarify its position
   (again) .  But given that I'm a member of the said SC, it might be
   useful to you to take my words into account.
 
  To make this clear in my mind I have listened and read the decision
  statement from the Steering Committee decision.
 
  The conversation on the conference call:
  I would ask the people working on Drupal to do a more detailed
  planning in the next month regarding additional services...
 
  right.
 
  There were some bits that I didn't quite understand (poor quality
  sound), but many people voiced their opinion that we should consider
  Drupal as the long term solution.
 
  I might repeat Cor's statements here, but many people voiced their
  opinion that we should consider Drupal as the long term solution
  means: many people think we should decide whether Drupal would be a
  long term solution . It's hardly a Steering Committee decision
  requesting the use of Drupal.
 
 
  The statement to the website list from the SC is as follows:
  the CMS decision was taken: it will be Silverstripe as a starter,
  with plans to migrate to Drupal later on.
 
 
 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.libreoffice.website/592
 
  plans... later on. Not now let's rush towards creating the
  definitive Drupal website...
 
 
  I would have thought that this official statement is very clear in the
  outcome
 
  Obviously it is conditional, and makes clear that it's an option for
  the long term.
 
  and the website team has had a large group of people (larger
  than that working on the current site) working towards this end, whom
  might I say have done a fantastic job in a very short period of time.
  Clearly the implementation is still a few months off as we start to
  involve Native Language teams and other functional teams.
 
  And to our great dismay, calls for help for the current website, which
  has all the top priority, went lost in a sea of mails about the Drupal
  project, and despite several mails of people explaining Drupal was just
  an option.
 
 
  I hope this clarifies my point, and makes it quite clear that I am not
  just hearing what I want to. This was the official decision statement
  as communicated back to the website mailing list.
 
  Well you now see that the official decision was not a definitive
  statement about Drupal, and that it was *considered* as an option.

 Thanks for the clarification Charles,
 This makes a lot more sense than a couple of other abrupt, emotional
 statements made by others regarding the CMS decision that we have seen
 on the mailing lists.
 If everyone was as clear and concise as you there would be no
 confusion about any issues.

 As you can see, there is a lot of enthusiasm around the Drupal
 development which has been put to good use and we should not waste.
 From my conversations the only reason a lot of people have not been
 working on the Silverstripe site is that they don't understand the CMS
 and are not really interested in learning it.
 It is true, once you use Drupal, you will never install another CMS.



I really -for what's worth I'd be mentioning that- don't care what we
choose, but I only want results and a tool that adapts to its community and
not the other way around. Definitive statements such as the one above do not
make me look forward Drupal. I could perhaps just say: how about we design
several html pages and stick them together with cgi, add some javascript and
you have a website? and that would keep things very, very simple ;)


 Over the coming couple of weeks, I will put together a proposal for
 the Steering Committee to consider an implementation plan.


Although you wrote it on a different mailing list, I would like to thank you
for willing to help out on the Silverstripe now. Implementation plan for
future drupal site will not be considered until several months, so really,
there's no rush.

Best,
Charles.



 Again,
 Thanks for clarifying this point.

 Michael Wheatland

 --
 Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
 discuss+h

RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format

Jesper,
We are not interested in OOXML, a standard that became one only after a
campaign of deception and unacceptable pressures driven by Microsoft.  We
are interested in ODF, an open standard developed by many players including
Microsoft.

We are only offering convenience to our users by letting them interact with
the poprietary formats of ms office product range. Therefore the OOXML
standard is not really something we are interested to help.
Thanks,

Charles.

Le 4 janv. 2011, 12:38 PM, Jesper Lund Stocholm 4a4553504...@gmail.com a
écrit :

Hello Charles (et al),

2011/1/3 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org:

 Barbara,   Le Mon, 03 Jan 2011 10:55:21 -0600,  Barbara Duprey 
b...@onr.com a écrit :   On...

 Well, the problem is that it's not that documented. Really,  Transitional
OOXML was an honourable...
As one of those actually trying to maintain OOXML in ISO, your
discussions are really interesting to me.

As per your discussions around S vs T, there are a couple of points
I'd like to make.

1. About conformance to OOXML (S or T): Leif mentioned that
implementing OOXML would display Microsoft's dirty laundry. I am
looking very much forward to your findings and where Microsoft Office
does not comply with the conformance rules in OOXML. I hope you will
share these with us - and the world in general, and any test documents
generated by Microsoft Office you make during your implementation
would be extremely interesting to look at.

2. T vs S: Please bear in mind that S is basically a limited version
of T. The only major obstacle/difference is that alle the namespaces
of S are different than those of T. Also, Microsoft Office uses these
namespaces during import as some sort of white-list, and AFAIK the new
namespaces of S have not yet been added to this whitelist (since the
addition of them is relatively recent and was after launch of
Microsoft Office 2010). Basically, if Microsoft Office doesn't
recognize the new namespaces, the docs will all fail on import in
Microsoft Office and you'd have zero interop.

Finally I ancourage you to make a public place to put your findings
while implementing OOXML in LibreOffice. It could serve as a very
usefull reference for a lot of people - including people like Leif
lobbying our politicians to use/mandate usage ODF.

PS: when trying to do interop with e.g. Microsoft Office always
consult their implementer notes available at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee908652(v=office.12).aspx

If any of you need additional information, I'd be happy to help.

PPS: for those of you on this list actually implementing OOXML in
LibreOffice - are you considering implementing MCE (OOXML, Part 3)
fully in LibreOffice?

--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
www.idippedut.dk
SC34/WG4 http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://listarc...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Do not support writing to OOXML format

Johannes, all,

Le Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:34:42 +0100,
Johannes A. Bodwing jo...@arcor.de a écrit :

 Hi Ian,
  ...
 
And they are not equal. That's my problem with it at the moment.
  I don't really understand how this democratic-meritocratic
  principle works. And what you explain below with Microsoft, for
  me it is not meritocratic or democratic that's an ethical aspect.
 
  Democracy means that everyone has the potential to contribute,
 
  Democracy simply means representation of the people (community).
  Even established democracies don't have referendums on every issue.
  Party political systems mean that there are real limits to what any
  individual can contribute. I can't go and contribute directly to
  new legislation other than by saying what I think and hope it will
  influence someone. That is not really much different from a FOSS
  project.
 
 ...
 
 What you say about democracy, political parties eg is the today 
 situation. But eventually think about this:
 Democratic systems have the power and lot of money for secret 
 cyber-tasks, for a hidden worldwide web of information and
 spy-systems and so on. They find it important, they give the money to
 do it and they have the will to do it. That's possible but not a
 better flow of information between citizens and politicians to create
 a more real democracy. There is no democratic-task, no
 worldwide-web of democratic informations. There is no will to involve
 more people in decisions or for the prefield of decisions.
 What will I say with this?
 Can we organize the structure of LO with examples in mind which have
 not the will for transparancy?
 Or must there be a thinking like:
 ESC has the final decision, OK.
 And for that, what are the best conditions that they have the best 
 informations to make the best decisions for the best (open) Office
 Suite? Eventually this is one other task for the time after the phase
 of beginning.
 
 Greetings,
 Johannes
 

I would like to close down that thread now. We have bylaws that people
were involved in and that have been stabilized:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws

And we have lots of things that need to be done and require volunteers.
Let me give you some pointers:

http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/BugReport
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Documentation/Produce
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing

Among other things.. Happy hacking!


-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Mac App Store

2011-01-07 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Jonathan,

I believe there are some specific legal issues that are related to FOSS
licences, but we do need to investigate some more (help is welcome). 

Best,
Charles. 

Le Fri, 07 Jan 2011 10:41:52 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit :

 Would we do something with LO, or would there be GPL licensing issues?
 
 On 01/07/2011 10:04 AM, Uwe Altmann wrote:
  Am 07.01.11 04:57, schrieb todd rme:
 
  - It is not packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging
  technologies included in Xcode – No third party installers are
  allowed (I thought this was a major goal of LibO)
  It /is/ packaged and submitted using Apple’s packaging
  technologies as far as the Mac Version of OOo is concerned - it's
  a *.dmg file containing an *.app folder, which his a common way of
  installing programs on a Mac.
 
  NeoOffice is listed since years in the download area of apple.com so
  this can not be that problematic.
 
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management

2011-01-07 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello David, 

See my comments inline.


Le Fri, 7 Jan 2011 23:12:29 +0800,
David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz a écrit :

 Hi guys, :-)
 
 I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org
 website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and
 the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and
 using it to further the project's aims and interests.
 
 To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently
 renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority
 and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want
 to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my
 decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members.
 Anything short of that, my decision wins.

I would not go for that, but as I and others say, we would like to have
the leadership on the website.

 
 This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and
 ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing.
 
 I would ask for the title of Executive editor of the libreoffice.org
 website. The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it
 gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as
 the press.
 
 If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will
 act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance
 and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community.
 
 I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to
 listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions
 possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution.
 
 Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC
 meeting.
 
 What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it
 produces?

I'm not really comfortable with this extraordinary powers over that
period and I would rather favour you driving a team (-an official team
that is-) . However, this is the Steering Discuss list, which means
that you have written an official and public request to the SC and we
are bound to discuss it at the next SC call, which we will do.

Best,
Charles.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store

2011-01-07 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Larry,

Let me remind you that we expect courtesy on our lists.

Thank you,

Charles.

Le 7 janv. 2011, 6:55 PM, Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :

On 2011/01/07 9:38 AM  Fabián Rodríguez wrote:   You're right, at least
for now. Apple controls i...
Your unsubstantiated idle speculation is pure FUD.

Larry -- _ Larry I. Gusaas Moose Jaw,
Saskatchewan Canada Website...

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://listarchives...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] [Forum]How will the forum be organized?

2011-01-10 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Fabian,

2011/1/10 Fabián Rodríguez magic...@member.fsf.org

 On 11-01-09 08:28 PM, Andy Brown wrote:
  On Sun Jan 09 2011 07:04:12 GMT-0800 (PST)  RGB ES wrote:
  https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/forums/
  They are hidden (no link on the help page) and you cannot post on
  them yet, but they exists and you can register ;) So my question is:
  how those forums will be organized? There will be one for each local
  site or only one on English? Categories? Organization (moderators,
  etc.)?
  Regards
  Ricardo
 
 
  Why add another forum?  There is already a LibO Forum at
  http://libreofficeforum.org/forum .  The Official OOo Forum at
  http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/ not only supports OOo
  but off shoots such as Libo, NeoOffice and StarOffice.  The
  Un-official Forum at http://www.oooforum.org/ is the oldest and
  largest OOo related support forum around and has received LibO
  questions and answers in the past few months.
 
  Andy
 

 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.


Well, this could be a great solution. Sophie, we should discuss this -at
least quickly- at the next SC call, what do you think?

Best,
Charles.



 Cheers,

 Fabian

 --
 LibreOffice questions ? Des questions sur LibreOffice ? Preguntas acerca
 de LibreOffice ? Ask LibreOffice: http://libreoffice.shapado.com/
 ~
 Fabián Rodríguez
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:MagicFab


 --
 Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
 Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
 *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Using free, open microblogging

2011-01-12 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:44:50 +0100,
Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On 1/12/11 10:38 AM, David Nelson wrote:
 
  I really wonder why this is necessary... I'd stay with Twitter...
  It's what everyone knows Or should we get off Facebook, too?
 
 identi.ca is totally (I mean TOTALLY) unknown in most geographies, so
 it does not make any sense to abandon the popular services for the
 sake of the unknown ones because they are free and open. Twitter, in
 this specific acception, is a costless marketing tool, and it makes a
 lot of sense to continue using it now. In the future, we will see.
 

No worries, you can use identi.ca and twitter at the same time (each
time you 'dent' it's synced with Twitter, so we can have both of them.

Best,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store

2011-01-12 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Larry,

Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:35:06 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :

 
 On 2011/01/12 8:49 AM  Mirek M. wrote:
  2011/1/12 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com
 
Why not license it under an appropriate license that would
   allow us to put it in the app store? would that mean we would
   need to remove the GPL or can it be dual licensed to go on the
   app store?
  I'm no expert, but as I understand it, LibreOffice is licensed
  under the LGPL, which should allow it to be used with DRM (whereas
  VLC was GPL). In order for LibreOffice to change its license, it
  would need to get an OK from all its contributors, including
  Oracle, which is not too likely to happen IMHO. But I don't think
  that's necessary in this case.
 
 There is no DRM used on the Mac OS X App Store. There is DRM on the
 Apple iOS AppStore. They are two separate entities. The FSF
 objections are to the DRM on the iOS AppStore and do not apply to the
 OS X App Store. Of course, the FSF objects to Apple and any other
 company that does not give away their software for free.
 

There is more than the DRM issue that is stake here. We are mostly
talking about the legal terms of the store. The FSF explains it adds
more terms than what the GPL can allow. This being said Jonathan is
making an interesting point about the LGPL, we'll need to check that. 

Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on the
mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not everyone
shares your passion or interest for the Mac platform. 

Thank you,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store

2011-01-12 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :

 
 On 2011/01/12 11:00 AM  Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
  Please let me reiterate, Larry, that the tone of our discussion on
  the mailing lists should be civil. Therefore, understand that not
  everyone shares your passion or interest for the Mac platform.
 
 And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?

The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it.

 
 Kind of ironic coming from someone who dismisses as Soapboxing the
 raising of legitimate concerns.

My blog is not one of the project's mailing lists.

Thank you,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store

2011-01-13 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hey Jonathan,

1) Sigrid is right, we would need to ask for Oracle to relicense.
2) The new, non-Oracle patches are however licensed under a dual (L)GPL
v3 + (note the + which allows us to upgrade) and MPL + as we found we
had several code lines written under that license inside the existing
OOo code. 
3) would Oracle object to it? I'm not Oracle and can't speak for them,
but I don't think they're our best friends for life... :-) More
seriously, why would they want to help us ?

Best,
Charles.

Le Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:51:52 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit :

 In all honesty would they object to it?
 
 On 1/13/11 11:46 AM, Sigrid Carrera wrote:
  Hi,
 
  2011/1/13 Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com:
  You would still need permission even though its a fork of the
  original code?
  yes, since the original contributors agreed to use a specific
  license. This cannot changed without consent from those people.
 
  Sigrid
 
 
 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Proposal of workgroup creation...

2011-01-16 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hi,

I believe that Olivier has a point here, but Francesc (welcome,
Francesc!) has an interesting idea. Wiki pages collecting
methodologies, feedback on migrations, knowledge, etc. can only help
rising the level of service providers and help even our developers and
marketeers gain a deeper understanding of these issues. In fact I could
go even further and claim there aren''t many people who have a solid
understanding of these matters, even here. 

So I would like to support the creation of this workgroup (let's be
informal here), knowing that indeed it cannot replace actual
consultancy but can generate interesting and valubale materials. 

Francesc, please feel free to open page(s) on the wiki:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org, I'll be glad to help if I can , and
perhaps would Olivier add some more content too :-)

Best,

Charles.


Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:03:48 -0200,
Olivier Hallot olivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org a écrit :

 Francesc,
 I am working on a 120.000 desktop migration. I think I saw many
 things that is good and evil.
 
 This is a change management project, and you can put it entirely into
 a PMBOK vanilla change management project. That does not means it
 will be easy to execute.
 
 Vendor lock-in thru specific proprietary extensions in migration 
 projects is the holy grail of all users that hate the idea of loosing 
 their beloved old and costly proprietary suite. If you fix this, they 
 will cut their wrists and bleed to death. Beware! :-)
 
 You may publish tons of recomendations in a workgroup for this
 purpose, it will not avoid the need of a high qualified consultancy
 in migration. Whoever attemps to migrate large corporation just
 reading a couple of pages if doomed. You don't do change management
 that big without external help.
 
 Olivier
 
 Em 15-01-2011 12:30, Francesc Mediterranean escreveu:
  Dear colleagues,
 
 
  I write to you to ask for your opinion relating to the evolution of
  libreoffice. I believe that could be very interesting to create a
  group for the creation of the methodology of migration of
  libroffice . I propose that the group should be called Process
  Methodology
 
  In my opinion, we must create the element to solve the change
  between MS office to Libre office, that is the methodology of
  migration / implementatin, defining the phases to developing, the
  content of this phases, the priorización, and other.
 
  From here I offer volunteer to initiate the development of this
  methodology, because I believe that it will be the tipping point,
  to promote the presence of libreoffice in the companies and public
  organizations,
 
 
  I will be grateful for your comments
 
  Regards
 
 
  Francesc X. Berjano
  Mail:franc...@mediterranean-consulting.com
  Twitter; @fxberjano
  Skype: FX_Mediterranean
 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?

Jonathan,

You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this...

Best,
Charles. 

Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:27:17 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit :

 I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does take 
 time, but i think in time this app store will be just as good as the
 app store found on the iphone. I am more then willing to head up a
 team to get this ball moving in regards to getting permission from
 oracle to relicense their code as well as getting it into the app
 store itself. i think though for that someone will need a developers
 license, which i am more then willing to get.
 
 On 01/14/2011 08:34 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
  Le 13/01/11 23:44, Larry Gusaas a écrit :
 
  Hi Larry,
 
 
  Make it available in the App Store. OOo was always listed in the
  Open Source software download page at Apple support. That service
  has now been replaced by the App Store.
 
  I checked out the App Store the day before yesterday and was rather
  disappointed by the paucity of freeware actually available. I had
  rather hoped that I would indeed find a similar array of content to
  that which used to be (still is ?) available under the Freeware /
  Open Source filter of the Apple Software Download page. Perhaps I
  missed something, or perhaps the store is just too recent (despite
  it being announced for a while already) for that software to have
  been included, or then again, perhaps it is the necessity of
  Apple's Review process that is putting people off. I assume that
  Apple reviews all of the software that an author might want to put
  on the store and has the final say in whether the app actually
  appears there or not ?
 
 
  Alex
 
 
 
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store

Hello Bob,

Le Sun, 16 Jan 2011 16:18:17 -0700,
Robert Holtzman hol...@cox.net a écrit :

 On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 04:37:55PM -0500, Charles Marcus wrote:
  On 2011-01-12 12:25 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
   Le Wed, 12 Jan 2011 11:05:16 -0600,
   Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :
   And please tell me, what was uncivil about my post?
  
   The tone of your post Larry. Please re-read it.
  
  Fwiw Larry, I circular filed your email address a while back
  precisely because:
  
  a) the tone of your emails are (often subtly) condescending and
  offensive, and
  
  b) when this is pointed out to you, you just don't seem to 'get
  it'...
  
  Don't bother replying, as I won't see it, unless someone else
  replies to it.
 
 I couldn't agree more. It's a crying shame that everyone doesn't
 conform to your rules of etiquette isn't it?
 
 Face it. The condescension and offensiveness in Larry's posts exist
 only in your mind.
 
I'm afraid it doesn't. I did find it offensive too, and so did many
people. Now I just want everyone to remember that this list is hosted
by the Document Foundation. 

We would like to keep the discussions here civil and focused. In case
of abuse, we may exclude any potential offender. 

This being said, this list should also be used to gather interest on
LibreOffice. If you take a look here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Main_Page

You will find many potential areas where you can contribute. 

Looking forward to your help and contribution(s)!

Best regards,
-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Co-Founder  Member of the Steering Committee,
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?

Many of them are not here (too much traffic). 

Let's see if I can raise this at one of our next SC calls. We're
really busy with other stuff, but...

best,
Charles.

Le Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:39:13 +0100,
Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com a écrit :

 The devs are more than welcome to comment
 
 What do some of the big boys think?
 
 On 01/17/2011 05:32 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
  Jonathan,
 
  You should also ask all the other devs now :-)
  What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on
  this...
 
  Best,
  Charles.
 
  Le Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:27:17 +0100,
  Jonathan Aquilinaeagles051...@gmail.com  a écrit :
 
  I know an iphone dev, and he has told me the review process does
  take time, but i think in time this app store will be just as good
  as the app store found on the iphone. I am more then willing to
  head up a team to get this ball moving in regards to getting
  permission from oracle to relicense their code as well as getting
  it into the app store itself. i think though for that someone will
  need a developers license, which i am more then willing to get.
 
  On 01/14/2011 08:34 AM, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
  Le 13/01/11 23:44, Larry Gusaas a écrit :
 
  Hi Larry,
 
 
  Make it available in the App Store. OOo was always listed in the
  Open Source software download page at Apple support. That service
  has now been replaced by the App Store.
 
  I checked out the App Store the day before yesterday and was
  rather disappointed by the paucity of freeware actually
  available. I had rather hoped that I would indeed find a similar
  array of content to that which used to be (still is ?) available
  under the Freeware / Open Source filter of the Apple Software
  Download page. Perhaps I missed something, or perhaps the store
  is just too recent (despite it being announced for a while
  already) for that software to have been included, or then again,
  perhaps it is the necessity of Apple's Review process that is
  putting people off. I assume that Apple reviews all of the
  software that an author might want to put on the store and has
  the final say in whether the app actually appears there or not ?
 
 
  Alex
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] An Interesting Mockup

I love those!

May the designer of these please stand up! :-)

best,
Charles.

Le Mon, 17 Jan 2011 23:20:58 +0530,
animesh meher animeshme...@hotmail.com a écrit :

 
 
 Hi! All, 
 
 
 I found an very interesting mock-up or Open Office UI, on DevianArt .
 
 Now that most screens are wide screen 
 A side bar based UI is the best usage of space.
 
 Here is the link.
 
 http://pauloup.deviantart.com/gallery/28216273#/d37dxkj
 
 Even IBM Symphony's UI are very good.
 
 Please its really time to change our UI to something more Usable. 
 An UI like this saves a lot of verticle space and most of the main
 editing options are clearly visible. We can surely work on this and
 improve.
 
 
 Cheers,
 Animesh Meher
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?

Alex.

I hope nothing too bad happened to you...

Take care

Charles.

Le 17 janv. 2011, 7:21 PM, sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com a écrit :

On 17/01/2011 21:14, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
[...]

  This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft
 TM usage policy/guide...
Oups, I hope you're safe, please take care of you Alex!
Kind regards
Sophie

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://lista...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Membership ODF Alliance

2011-01-20 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Rainer,

We are a bit behind this these days, but thanks for the reminder ;)

Best,

Charles.

2011/1/20 Rainer Bielefeld libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de

 Hi,

 I can't find us on http://www.odfalliance.org/members.php#viewall.

 May be TDF should become member?

 Or is a.m. page only outdated?

 Regards

 Rainer

 --
 Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
 discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
 Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
 *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation

2011-01-21 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hi,


Le Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:21:14 +,
Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit :

 Hi there,
 
 On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 15:46 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
  Please find the more or less final draft of the trademark policy of
  the Document Foundation:
  http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy
 
   We've done some analysis internally on it, and the good news
 is that the text looks fairly good.
 
   There is some concern about the lack of clarity on whether
   incorporating libreoffice (or other marks) into a domain name
   is allowed - this is an area people often want to tread on,
 and we should probably directly address it.
 
   Similarly - it does not mention including 'libreoffice' into a
   business name - I think we should simply prohibit that.
 
   So I suggest we add a clarification of both of these to the
 end of the Non permitted use section.
 
   Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name, or business name
without explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited.

That does sound sensible. We should also think about having maybe
differentiated logos...

 
   Another point is around the licensing of the policy itself; I
 suggest we place it under some sort of open license  - e.g., creative
 commons attribution share-alike, or something like that, so other
 projects can freely re-use it. That is relatively easy to do, but I'd
 like to get Karen's feedback first.

That's trivial indeed. 

 
   Finally - I just realised that I'd like the substantially
 unmodified clause to include a few more bundling bits: so
 
   Substantially unmodified means built from the source code
provided by TDF, possibly with minor modifications including
but not limited to: the enabling or disabling of certain
features by default, translations into other languages,
 changes required for compatibility with a particular operating system
 -  distribution, or the inclusion of bug-fix patches).
 +  distribution, the inclusion of bug-fix patches, or the
 bundling
 +  of additional fonts, templates, artwork and extensions)
 
   Since that seems like it is something people would want to
 call LibreOffice and just extends the package other translations
 scope to other common things.
 
   So - do people have problems with any of that ?

Not from my side. Here's the feedback I gathered elsewhere (from other
lawyers):
-the substantially unmodified clause was found vague so what you just
proposed above might help.
- there was the question of the clause requesting that any distributor
  mentions one can get LibreOffice for free (on our website) and
  provide a link to it. The question was about whether we should
  request distributors to put that more proeminently. I have to say I
  didn't really understand that comment; but the answer was that
  Mozilla does not even allow to make a profit from the distribution of
  the software on a physical medium (you can charge a fee covering
  costs, but not make a profit on it apparently). I think we want to
  leave our clause the way it is, it sounds reasonnable. 

Best,
Charles. 

 
   HTH,
 
   Michael.
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Update / Update info

2011-01-24 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hi,

Actually that does already exist, if I'm not misstaken, except it does
not do anything with uninstall the old version. But there's an alert on
the desktop that notifies the user when there's a new version (same
with extensions btw).

Best,
Charles.


Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:08:58 +0100,
Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :

 Why not make a simple solution in the meantime?
 
 Only tell the user there is a new version, and a link to the new
 version. Obviously the installable of the new version should be able
 to automatically de-install the old version. That should be actually
 very easy, don't you think so?
 
 Cheers!
 
 On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09, Charles-H. Schulz 
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 
  Hello Jaime,
 
 
  Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100,
  Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :
 
   Hello all,
  
   for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for Windows  Mac
   LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no sense?
  
   My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's completely
   Automatic, or they only get an info pop window, offering a one
   click update.
  
   Cheers!
  
   Jaime
 
 
  It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it, but the
  question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is possible but it
  requires quite a lot of resources, time, etc. So don't expect it in
  the 3.4...
 
  best,
  Charles.
 
 
 
  --
  Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
  discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
  Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
  *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
 
 
 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Update / Update info

2011-01-24 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

It does work only for stable releases (unless we dumped that update
component???) . Anyway, if you have any ideas on the implementation of
such a feature, you're welcome to upload a patch :-)

Best,

Charles.


Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:51:36 +0100,
Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :

 I have LibreOffice 3.3.0 rc3 and I was not notified of the rc4.
 
 On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:17, Charles-H. Schulz 
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
  Actually that does already exist, if I'm not misstaken, except it
  does not do anything with uninstall the old version. But there's an
  alert on the desktop that notifies the user when there's a new
  version (same with extensions btw).
 
  Best,
  Charles.
 
 
  Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:08:58 +0100,
  Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :
 
   Why not make a simple solution in the meantime?
  
   Only tell the user there is a new version, and a link to the new
   version. Obviously the installable of the new version should be
   able to automatically de-install the old version. That should be
   actually very easy, don't you think so?
  
   Cheers!
  
   On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09, Charles-H. Schulz 
   charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
  
Hello Jaime,
   
   
Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100,
Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :
   
 Hello all,

 for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for Windows 
 Mac LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no sense?

 My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's
 completely Automatic, or they only get an info pop window,
 offering a one click update.

 Cheers!

 Jaime
   
   
It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it, but
the question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is possible but
it requires quite a lot of resources, time, etc. So don't
expect it in the 3.4...
   
best,
Charles.
   
   
   
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
  discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%252bh...@documentfoundation.org
  
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity
***
   
   
  
 
 
  --
  Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
  discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
  Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
  *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
 
 
 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Automatic Update / Update info

2011-01-24 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

So, we're talking about some discussions that took place during the
OpenOffice time, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away :-)
I don't remember why we had chosen not to implement it for betas/RC ,
there was supposedly a good reason for that but I completely forgot
about it. Let me ask anyway. 

@Mike: apps that notifies users when another software can be updated
exist a lot on the mac but here Jaime was mentioning one specific
feature of LibreOffice that notifies the user directly and, possibly,
updates LibO by itself.

best,
Charles.

Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:06:46 +0100,
Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :

 I would love to, if I could! Maybe I'll have to learn how to make
 extensions and probably make one.
 
 If it's already implemented for the stable releases, why not add it
 to the RCs too, as optional?
 
 Cheers!
 
 On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 12:06, Charles-H. Schulz 
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
 
  It does work only for stable releases (unless we dumped that update
  component???) . Anyway, if you have any ideas on the implementation
  of such a feature, you're welcome to upload a patch :-)
 
  Best,
 
  Charles.
 
 
  Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:51:36 +0100,
  Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :
 
   I have LibreOffice 3.3.0 rc3 and I was not notified of the rc4.
  
   On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:17, Charles-H. Schulz 
   charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
  
Hi,
   
Actually that does already exist, if I'm not misstaken, except
it does not do anything with uninstall the old version. But
there's an alert on the desktop that notifies the user when
there's a new version (same with extensions btw).
   
Best,
Charles.
   
   
Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:08:58 +0100,
Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :
   
 Why not make a simple solution in the meantime?

 Only tell the user there is a new version, and a link to the
 new version. Obviously the installable of the new version
 should be able to automatically de-install the old version.
 That should be actually very easy, don't you think so?

 Cheers!

 On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:09, Charles-H. Schulz 
 charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote:

  Hello Jaime,
 
 
  Le Mon, 24 Jan 2011 10:49:03 +0100,
  Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :
 
   Hello all,
  
   for when is it planned to have Automatic Update for
   Windows  Mac LibreOffice, for Linux usually makes no
   sense?
  
   My opinion, the user should be able to decide if it's
   completely Automatic, or they only get an info pop window,
   offering a one click update.
  
   Cheers!
  
   Jaime
 
 
  It would be an excellent idea, and many thought about it,
  but the question is how feasible it is. I'm sure it is
  possible but it requires quite a lot of resources, time,
  etc. So don't expect it in the 3.4...
 
  best,
  Charles.
 
 
 
  --
  Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
  discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
  discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%252bh...@documentfoundation.org
  
discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%252bh...@documentfoundation.org
  discuss%252bh...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%25252bh...@documentfoundation.org
  

  Archive:
  http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ ***
  All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity
  ***
 
 

   
   
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
  discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%252bh...@documentfoundation.org
  
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity
***
   
   
  
 
 
  --
  Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
  discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
  Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
  *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
 
 
 


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] odftoolkit and LibO

2011-02-01 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello 


Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 00:11:29 +0700,
Nguyen Vu Hung vuhung16p...@gmail.com a écrit :

 Hello,
 
 Just a simple question:
 
 Is that odftoolkit a part of Oracle?

It's vague. Technically no, it's a joint IBM-Oracle project that
requires you to assign your copyright and contribute to the project
under an Apache License. The infrastructure is owned and run by Oracle. 

 Is there any cooperation between odftoolkit and LibO?

Not directly at least. Given that you have to request rights on the
server to Oracle engineers to post any patch, I would be surprised if
they'd grant us anything :-)

Best,
Charles. 

 
 http://odftoolkit.org/
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] poll on next SC confcall

2011-02-01 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Le Tue, 1 Feb 2011 18:32:35 +0100,
Thorsten Behrens t...@documentfoundation.org a écrit :

 Florian Effenberger wrote:
  you all know how it works... :-) Here's the poll for the next SC
  confcall:
  
  http://www.doodle.com/psis3q75u3xrvbh8?newDesign=true
  
 Gonna be a bit tough - many folks will be at FOSDEM starting Friday
 - maybe have 1-2 days of next week, too?
 
 Cheers,
 
 -- Thorsten
 

Yes, I would much rather try to work on the ongoing issues (TM
policies, fundraising/foundation)...

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] purpose of this list?

2011-02-02 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello Kevin, Sigrid,

Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:49:04 +0100,
Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com a écrit :

 Hi Kevin,
 
 2011/2/2 Kevin Hunter kmhun...@ncsu.edu:
  Hullo List,
 
  I'm having a difficult tracking down the exact topic for this list.
  Specifically, is this a list for discussing LibreOffice (the
  product) or more Document Foundation topics?
 
 I'd say it's more about topics concerning the Document Foundation.
 
  If it's the latter, would someone kindly tell me the list address
  for the LibreOffice general discussion?
 
 The general discussion list for LibreOffice would be then
 disc...@libreoffice.org.
 
 HTH
 
 Sigrid
 

For the moment, we'll only keep one discuss list, the present one, for
both TDF and LibreOffice.

Best,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] purpose of this list?

2011-02-02 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:11:18 +0100,
Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com a écrit :

 Ups, sorry.
 
 2011/2/2 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org:
  Hello Kevin, Sigrid,
 
  Le Wed, 2 Feb 2011 15:49:04 +0100,
  Sigrid Carrera sigrid.carr...@googlemail.com a écrit :
 
  Hi Kevin,
 
  2011/2/2 Kevin Hunter kmhun...@ncsu.edu:
 
 [...]
 
 
  For the moment, we'll only keep one discuss list, the present one,
  for both TDF and LibreOffice.
 
 thanks for the clarification. I confused it with the germanspeaking
 discuss-list of LibreOffice.
 
 Sigrid
 

Waaas? This is not a german speaking list? (just kidding)

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] purpose of this list?

2011-02-02 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Le Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:47:58 +0100,
Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org a écrit :

 Hi,
 
 drew wrote on 2011-02-02 16.44:
  It must be pushing 100 mail lists by now is there really any reason
  not to setup a discuss @ tdf.org at this point, so that the
  international discuss @ libo.org could focus on the application?
 
 we're right now restructuring a few lists, and indeed plan to have a 
 separate discuss@tdf and discuss@libo.
 
 Florian
 

Well, do we want to have 2 discuss lists? We're going to have some more
reading to do :-/

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation

2011-02-15 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hi,

I uploaded the latest changes and modified the text accordingly, it
incorporates many, if not most of the changes from RH:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy

best,
Charles. 

Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:14 +,
Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit :

 
 On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 10:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote:
   are we good on the TM policy? I'd like to move forward on this...
  I am, of course.
 
   Oh ! did we fold in the Redhat advice ? (which seemed good to
 me) - I believe we did not, it would be worth someone carefully doing
 that I suppose.
 
   ATB,
 
   Michael.
 



-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Oracle Contributor Agreement and LibreOffice contributions

2011-02-16 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello Christophe, 

Le Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:28:43 +0100,
Christophe Strobbe christophe.stro...@esat.kuleuven.be a écrit :

 Hi,
 
 I have a question about licences and copyright. As many of you know, 
 contributing code to the core of OpenOffice.org requires that one 
 signs the Oracle Contributor Agreement [1] (which is identical to the 
 Sun Contributor Agreement). Extensions are exempt from this [2].

So, IANAL, I'm not Oracle, this is not a TDF official statement, don't
put your cat in the microwave, etc, etc

 
 1. Now imagine that I contribute code to LibreOffice and the 
 contribution is accepted. Is it then still acceptable (from a 
 copyright point of view) to sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement and 
 submit the same code to OpenOffice.org?

Yes. 

 
 2. Conversely, if I sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement and submit 
 code (and it gets accepted, otherwise the copyright reverts to me), 
 can I then still submit the same code to LibreOffice or would that 
 cause problems for LibreOffice (because Oracle now shares copyright 
 of the code I submitted)?

Yes. Actually that's what we do when we pull the OOo codebase over to
us. 

 2.b. Can I contribute the code to LibreOffice while the acceptance of 
 my patch to OpenOffice.org is still pending?

Yes. 


Best,
Charles. 







-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation

2011-02-19 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hi,

@Bernhard: now we just need the logos without the TDF mention to be put on
a page with its source on the wiki, and I think we'll be ready to announce
our trademark policy Do you think you or Christoph can do that?

Thank you,
Charles.

2011/2/15 Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org

 Hi,

 I uploaded the latest changes and modified the text accordingly, it
 incorporates many, if not most of the changes from RH:
 http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy

 best,
 Charles.

 Le Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:14 +,
 Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit :

 
  On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 10:24 +0100, Italo Vignoli wrote:
are we good on the TM policy? I'd like to move forward on this...
   I am, of course.
 
Oh ! did we fold in the Redhat advice ? (which seemed good to
  me) - I believe we did not, it would be worth someone carefully doing
  that I suppose.
 
ATB,
 
Michael.
 



 --
 Charles-H. Schulz
 Membre du Comité exécutif
 The Document Foundation.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Strange OpenOffice Email from a new universe

2011-02-26 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

You can copy and paste it here,of course :-)

Charles.

Le 26 févr. 2011, 5:25 PM, Howard Barr how...@weceikaiwa.com a écrit :

On 27/02/2011 00:54, Italo Vignoli wrote:   Any chance of getting a copy
of such emails? I would l...
I can forward it to you?

Howard

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://listar...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[steering-discuss] Approval of our Trademark Policy

2011-03-01 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

*** SC Members and their deputies***

Please vote +1 or -1 in order to approve the trademark policy (text is
here: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TradeMark_Policy)

Please also make sure you have read the additional material here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Logo_Policy and there:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Marketing/Branding#Resources_for_external_use

I would like to close this vote in about 24 hours from now.

Thank you,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Disclaimer

2011-03-09 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello everyone,

Sorry for jumping so late...


Le Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:04:35 +0100,
Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On 3/9/11 3:51 PM, Jesús Corrius wrote:
 
  If there are no objections in 24 hours, I'll edit the pages to point
  to the official lists.
 
 24 hours have officially gone by now. Jesus, please change the page 
 ASAP. I will draft a media advisory ASAP.
 

I read that Daniel was told by someone from OOoES that they had
discussed the mailing lists problem with TDF. While it is accurate we
never reached an agreement and it's clear to me we requested them to
use our mailing lists. 

The point is not to prohibit people to use their own tools. It is to
avoid confusion (OOoES is not TDF and I don't see why OOoES should
dictate anything to the rest of the Spanish speaking contributors) and
also that TDF feels there's a problem with respect to how OOOES is
handling its positioning (no, no conflict of interest, but a lack of
transparency in how it deals with its contributions to several
projects). So while people are free to contribute through various
teams, it is also the right of TDF to choose how and with whom it wants
to work.

Sorry Daniel for this inconvenience,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Disclaimer

2011-03-09 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Le Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:47:50 +0100,
Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On 3/9/11 4:35 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
 
  The point is not to prohibit people to use their own tools. It is to
  avoid confusion (OOoES is not TDF and I don't see why OOoES should
  dictate anything to the rest of the Spanish speaking contributors)
  and also that TDF feels there's a problem with respect to how OOOES
  is handling its positioning (no, no conflict of interest, but a
  lack of transparency in how it deals with its contributions to
  several projects). So while people are free to contribute through
  various teams, it is also the right of TDF to choose how and with
  whom it wants to work.
 
 Charles, we have to act once and for all. Alexandro wants to maintain 
 the power he has been given by the OOo community, and does not want
 us to develop an independent Spanish community. The reality is that
 OOoES represents only Alexandro and his friends, and I do not think
 that we will loose anything by alienating them, while - on the
 contrary - I think that we are losing a huge opportunity with the
 Spanish community if we don't act immediately and ban Alexandro from
 our servers.
 
 He will never behave in the proper way. We all know him, and the
 damages he has done to the OOo Spanish community (which has never
 been a real community). If we continue to keep the door open we will
 never get a transparent situation, and the outside world will
 continue to think that we are behind Alexandro.
 

Italo, that's exactly what I'm saying :-) Although banning Alexandro
is, well, perhaps something we can study later on. 

Best,
Charles.



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Disclaimer

2011-03-11 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello Daniel,

Please correct the listing of the mailing lists by replacing them with
the TDF/LibreOffice mailing lists in Spanish.

Thank you,
-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] [OT] Japan Earthquake

2011-03-12 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

My thoughts as well go to our japanese volunteers. I hope they and their
relatives.

Beqt wishes,

Charles.

Le 12 mars 2011, 2:47 PM, Florian Effenberger 
flo...@documentfoundation.org a écrit :

Hello,

NoOp wrote on 2011-03-12 00.44:

  To all the LibreOffice/TDF users/contributors in Japan  areas affected
 by the earthquake,  ...
I second that. I am shocked by what happens in Japan, and my thoughts,
wishes and hopes are with our friends there. I hope all of you and your
beloved ones, your families and friends are okay, and I keep you in my
prayers.

You have friends all around the world, who think of you in these hard times.

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+help@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://listar...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Local LibO Planets?

2011-03-18 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello Ricardo,

I think this has to be an initiative coming from each l10n/NL teams.

Best,
Charles.

2011/3/17 RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com

 Just as the subject says: are there plans to create LibO Planets for
 different localizations?
 With the growing community, there will be bloggers talking about LibO
 so a dedicated planet would be interesting, I think. And more
 interesting if there are more Planets, one for each (mayor)
 localization.
 What do you think?
 Cheers
 Ricardo

 --
 Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
 Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
 *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Feature request - embed font

2011-03-20 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hi.

Font embedding reloes on the format used by the suite. Currently only PDF
has this ability.

Best,

Charles.

Le 20 mars 2011, 3:21 PM, aqualung xfekdcugj...@mailinator.com a écrit :

Jason Corfman-2 wrote:   But embedding a font into a document  for
editing purposes quickly sli...
Isn't it the font that determines what you can do with it?

Fonts that allow embedding are either editable or installable. Surely
there is no legal issue if the font explicitly allows you to embed it in one
of these two ways? When a font does not explicitly allow it then a software
should not make it possible, either; that goes without saying.

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Feature-request-embed-font-tp2679885p2705927.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.orgArchive:
http://listarchives...

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: RE : [tdf-discuss] Re: Feature request - embed font

2011-03-21 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Thanks Jean-Baptiste, yes, that's what I meant :-)

Charles.

2011/3/21 Jean-Baptiste Faure jbf.fa...@orange.fr

Le 20/03/2011 23:25, aqualung a écrit :
Thank you, that is very clear.

I am still not understanding Charles' comment.
Charles meant that embedded fonts is not really a problem for the
software but must be first adressed by the OpenDocument format which is
not under the control of LibreOffice.

Have a nice day
JBF

Steve Edmonds wrote:
Hi. sorry, this is probably my imprecise english. By suite I meant the
LO suite (group) of products, were font embedding in files to be
extended to more than writer. Otherwise, if font embedding is limited to
writer (odt files) then suite should be replaced with writer.

To clarify further, by embedding fonts, I mean embedding them in the
document file as a font, not embedding them in the document as some
coded character.

Cheers, steve

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/RE-tdf-discuss-Re-Feature-request-embed-font-tp2706681p2707479.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

--
Seuls des formats ouverts peuvent assurer la pérennité de vos documents.

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Confused by our Trademark Policy ...

2011-03-27 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello,


Le Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:01:09 +,
Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com a écrit :

 Hi Charles,
 
 On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 18:04 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
  I have thus taken Michael's input and adapted it to our existing
  proposal. In substance, the TM policy itself *hasn't changed* I
  simply added one more link in the text to our logo guideline.
 
   Looks good; we still talk exclusively about Trademarks, where
 I would really prefer 'Marks' to be used everywhere (as it was at the
 beginning). IMHO that separation was introduced to try to create a new
 category for logos, and I don't believe we want that.
 
   The exemplary pointer right in the middle of the hard rules
 is odd. Our guidelines are extremely practical ;-) so I would say:
 
 - (see our simplified logo policy for more practical information) 
 + (see our simplified logo policy for some examples) 
 
   I would also remove the blurb at the beginning.
 
   While this document covers the topics related to Trademark
Policy, you may find more practical information about our
logos and how to use them here.
 
   as part of that too; no need for two links.
 
   Otherwise, with that included, I'm for approving this this as
 the best I can persuade you to iterate to as of now without advice to
 back me up, IANAL etc. ;-)
 

So I have replaced trademarks by marks, as well as modified the text
according to some of your corrections above (not all of them). I'd like
to call for a vote (the final one) starting now until Tuesday at noon
Foundation time.

Best,
Charles.

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] Two questions about course of LO

2011-03-31 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello Aqualung, please read my answers below.

2011/3/31 aqualung xfekdcugj...@mailinator.com

Got a couple of questions.

(1) I heard that OpenOffice is restricted from re-using code from
LibreOffice because Oracle insists on broader licenses than LO developers
are willing to give, but the reverse is not true. So, from this aspect LO
can only get stronger while OOo stagnates. Is this accurate?

It is not accurate in the sense that in order to contribute to OpenOffice
developers should assign their copyright to Oracle, while there's no such
thing for LibreOffice. Since The Document Foundation has not submitted its
copyright (or the ones of its contributors) to Oracle, Oracle cannot get our
contributions but we can get theirs. I don't know whether that makes LO get
stronger while OOo stagnates, as I feel we have other reasons to explain
that pattern, but it could be a possible outcome of this situation.

(2) According to what I've read so far, most of the work to create and
maintain OpenOffice was done by a team of developers originally working for
StarOffice, later bought by Sun, in turn bought by Oracle. Outside
volunteers working without pay contributed only a small portion of the
code.

This is true for two completely different reasons: 1) the code is complex
and was never made really easier for outside contributors to participate
2)Oracle had an habit of exercising tight control over patches and took time
to integrate them. However that has changed in LibreOffice, see below.

Other companies, notably Novell, are said to be stepping in for LO. Will
they dedicate comparable resources to maintaining and expanding LO as
StarOffice/Sun/Oracle did for OO? If not, will volunteers (enthusiastic
about being free of Oracle) be picking up the slack for LO, or is it too
early to tell?

Well this has already happened six months ago and is happening as we speak
:-) One of the greatest success of LibreOffice so far is to have aggregated
the Novell/Suse developers, the Red Hat ones and the Ubuntu/Canonical around
this project. But even they are only a tiny fraction of our developers'
community. Enthusiasm, as you wrote, and much more open development process
have achieved what was never achieved in 10 years of OpenOffice.org: in 6
months we moved from around 15 developers to around 160 developers, not
counting the localizers. So we're pretty confident that we will continue to
expand because of these trends :-)

Best,
Charles.

--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Two-questions-about-course-of-LO-tp2757230p2757230.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*

Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Get and appove: recommended Soundfile pronouncing LibreOffice

2011-04-02 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello there,

I would like to remind everyone here that courtesy is the rule here.
Harsh words in any language are not allowed. Please respect everyone
here and especially the people you are talking to.

Also remember to keep discussions on topic.

Thanks,

Charles.


Le Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:55:05 -0600,
Larry Gusaas larry.gus...@gmail.com a écrit :

 
 On 2011/04/02 12:54 AM  Len Copley wrote:
  My English dictionary tells me at the beginning , that Canada is
  unique, in as much as Canadians will spell correct English or use
  American English. 
 Huh? More of this correct English bullshit. Correct English in
 Great Britain is different than correct English in Canada which is
 different than correct English in the U.S. of A.
 
 There is no one Correct English. So quit being such an arrogant
 prig.
 
 BTW, how do you like all the new words added to the OED this year?
 
 Larry


-- 
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] LO OO are not the only competitors of MSOffice... LO could also make a simple office suite that runs in Android iOS

2011-04-03 Thread Charles-H. Schulz

Hello Jaime,

Le Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:16:48 +0200,
Jaime R. Garza gar...@gmail.com a écrit :

 On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 11:53, Valter Mura valterm...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
  In data giovedì 31 marzo 2011 17:32:45, Jaime R. Garza ha scritto:
 
  Please, don't top quote.
 
  This said, are any of you involved in business? If so, maybe you
  use a Blackberry phone.
 
  So let's start to think to create *also* a light version for
  Blackberry OS.
 
  Enterprises would also accept to pay a little fee for it, helping
  its development and the foundation, I suppose.
 
  Ciao
  --
  Valter
  Registered Linux User #466410  http://counter.li.org
  Kubuntu Linux: www.kubuntu.org
  LibreOffice: www.libreoffice.org
  OpenOffice.org: www.openoffice.org
 
 
 
 About the top quote, it this how it's supposed to be? Isn't it better
 the other way? At least for me it is.
 
 About being involved in a business, yes I am, I work for a large
 company (around 400,000 employees).
 
 About the Blackberry, I really think is more important to see into the
 future, where Android  iPhone will dominate, even in the Business.
 And please don't forget that even RIM (makers of Blackberry) has
 decided to produce compatibility to Android apps.
 
 We are are analyzing which Office Suite to use for non-Windows
 devices, and probably Thinkfree is going to win, since there is no
 other real contender.
 


If you work for such a large corporation/entity, then perhaps your
employer would be interested in funding the initiative of porting
LibreOffice to mobile platform(s), or even send in some developers.
Otherwise we will have to do this on our own timing and resources I'm
afraid.

Best,

-- 
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

-- 
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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

Hello Laszlo,


Le Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:42:10 +0200 (CEST),
Kürti László kurti.las...@openskm.com a écrit :

 Hi All,
 
 Sorry for this off topic but this is serious
 http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215419/EC_enters_talks_with_Microsoft_for_new_licenses?taxonomyName=IT+in+GovernmenttaxonomyId=13
 
 If this come true than we (LibreOffice an other FLOSS products) will
 be down and out, buried by dust for ever, governments do not need
 better excuse than this.
 
 Please make your action today:
 blog about, send a mail to your member of EP, tell the local media


I would not be as pessimistic as you are, the EC is unfortunately a
MS shop, but there is certainly ground to protest; I'd suggest you use
other, more focused initiatives than this list to take action:
http://interopwikiproject.com/public-procurement:ec-pushes-ahead-with-windows-7-migration

Best,
Charles.

 
 Thx
 Laszlo
 
 --
 Kürti László
 Open SKM Agency Kft.
 1024 Budapest Kút u. 5
 www.openskm.com
 kurti.las...@openskm.com
 (+36-1)-788-6556
 
 


-- 
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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

Le Tue, 05 Apr 2011 10:53:47 +0200,
pierre choffardet pierre.choffar...@free.fr a écrit :

 Le 05/04/2011 09:42, Kürti László a écrit :
  Hi All,
 
  Sorry for this off topic but this is serious
  http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215419/EC_enters_talks_with_Microsoft_for_new_licenses?taxonomyName=IT+in+GovernmenttaxonomyId=13
 
  If this come true than we (LibreOffice an other FLOSS products)
  will be down and out, buried by dust for ever, governments do not
  need better excuse than this.
 
  Please make your action today:
  blog about, send a mail to your member of EP, tell the local media
 
  Thx
  Laszlo
 
  --
  Kürti László
  Open SKM Agency Kft.
  1024 Budapest Kút u. 5
  www.openskm.com
  kurti.las...@openskm.com
  (+36-1)-788-6556
 
 
 *April 1, 2011
 
No it's not an April fools' day, unfortunately. The article has been
published that day but there were others before and after.

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

Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.

Laszlo,

It is not up to TDF to do something, but we have to act, each of us,
individually and collectively to make sure we get results .

Best,
Charles.

Le Tue, 5 Apr 2011 12:22:24 +0200 (CEST),
Kürti László kurti.las...@openskm.com a écrit :

Charles,

I was asking the European members personally! to take something
against it. We here in Hungary spent the last 5 years with lobbying
for only to let the FLOSS into the public sector. Earlier it was not
possible. We had some positive results 'cause we could refer the EU
policies. But if the EC don't give ...t what can I say? I tell you,
nothing! And really all the national governments will be more than
happy to find an excuse not to do anything for interoperability, for
standardization and for freedom.

If we?, you? (TDF) have the will and members stand behind this case
than we have a chance.

Yes we must act an intelligent way but first of all we must act.

Laszlo

- Original Message -
From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org
To: discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2011 11:16:58 AM
Subject: Re: [tdf-discuss] European Commitee enter talks with MS
licences, Please make your action today against it.

Hello Laszlo,

Le Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:42:10 +0200 (CEST),
Kürti László kurti.las...@openskm.com a écrit :

Hi All,

Sorry for this off topic but this is serious
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9215419/EC_enters_talks_with_Microsoft_for_new_licenses?taxonomyName=IT+in+GovernmenttaxonomyId=13

If this come true than we (LibreOffice an other FLOSS products) will
be down and out, buried by dust for ever, governments do not need
better excuse than this.

Please make your action today:
blog about, send a mail to your member of EP, tell the local media

I would not be as pessimistic as you are, the EC is unfortunately a
MS shop, but there is certainly ground to protest; I'd suggest you use
other, more focused initiatives than this list to take action:
http://interopwikiproject.com/public-procurement:ec-pushes-ahead-with-windows-7-migration

Best,
Charles.

Thx
Laszlo

--
Kürti László
Open SKM Agency Kft.
1024 Budapest Kút u. 5
www.openskm.com
kurti.las...@openskm.com
(+36-1)-788-6556

--
Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

--
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] European Commitee enter talks with MS licences, Please make your action today against it.