Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice

2011-05-16 Thread Francois Tigeot
Hi,

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 06:31:55PM +0200, André Schnabel wrote:
 
 Am 16.05.2011 17:58, schrieb Francois Tigeot:
 
 Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured
 to receive your application as a TDF member. :)
 How can I do that ? And what does a membership entails ?
 
 What -  see http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Membership
 
 How - fil in the form at
 https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/application-for-tdf-community-membership/

Thanks André, will have a look.

-- 
Francois Tigeot

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice

2011-05-12 Thread André Schnabel

Hi,

Am 12.05.2011 15:29, schrieb Francois Tigeot:

...

So in your case, there might be confusion what the origin of the sofware
is - you are the vendor, but you are not TDF.

I'm starting to realize the vendor term should be defined: I'm only writing
packaging scripts, and many third-parties could use them to provide finished
binary packages.

The origin of the software, is clearly TDF: the source code is used as-is,
without any modification.
There may be some small platform-specific patches in the future but that's
all.


It's likely for me to fail giving a good vendor definition in English. 
Let's have a look at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_%28supply_chain%29

'Vendor' generally applies only to the immediate vendor, or the 
organization that is paid for the goods, rather than to the original 
manufacturer or the organization performing the service if it is 
different from the immediate supplier.


In this context you may see TDF as the original manufacturer (of the 
source code) while you are the immediate supplier (of the final 
package containing your modifications).






Therefore: It is absolutely ok to use the LibreOffice trademark, but
it is questionable to use The Document Foundation trademark.

Should I only use LibreOffice ? The wording on the about box would give
this :
   This product was created by LibreOffice, based on OpenOffice.org, which is
   Copyright 2000, 2010 Oracle and/or its affiliates.

Which will be a bit weird...


Why not use something like NetBSD pkgsrc Team - this is more or less 
what the Linux distributions do. They use LibreOffice but a different 
vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest some effort to 
bring the packages to their users.




Not really: pkgsrc is a framework to manage and build packages. LibreOffice
is build in the same way as a regular developer would do it and the end
result is a binary package, like a .deb or .rpm

What I've been doing so far is:
- make a list of the source code distribution files, as well as where to get
them
- add checksums for these files
- define the dependencies needed to build and/or run LO (zip, cups, libxslt,
   etc...)
- define the packages it may conflict with such as staroffice
- specify some configuration options (disable opengl, use system libraries,
   etc...)
- tell pkgsrc to launch the build with autogen.sh and gmake

In a way, it's a machine readable specification of the build instructions
available on the developers web page.



Ok, this is beyond my expertise. If it was possible to include all what 
is neede in our build environment, so that anybody (any member of TDF) 
could do exactly what you do - I'd agree, you use The Document 
Foundation vendor string. This would of likely mean some work 
(integrating your modifications upstream, testing it, maybe making it 
generic ...). But by doing all this you would qualify as TDF member - 
and this would be agin for me be an indication to use The Document 
Foundation vendor string.


Anyway - at this point I'd like to see the input of other SC-members who 
have a better understanding what happens technically.


regards,

André

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted



Re: [steering-discuss] Vendor string usage in third-party package of LibreOffice

2011-05-12 Thread Thorsten Behrens
Francois Tigeot wrote:
  In this context you may see TDF as the original manufacturer (of
  the source code) while you are the immediate supplier (of the
  final package containing your modifications).
 
 Okay. In this context, the vendor would be the packager then.
 
Hi Francois, all,

oh fun, since this is a real corner case - unless nobody distributes
binaries from your config, I guess keeping TDF as the vendor would
be fine (to make that 100% undisputable, you may want to commit that
file to our git repos, and use it as the authoritative source).

Once NetBSD starts providing binary packages, things change - then
you should use the wording as Andre suggested below:

  Why not use something like NetBSD pkgsrc Team - this is more or
  less what the Linux distributions do. They use LibreOffice but a
  different vendor string, which proudly states that they did invest
  some effort to bring the packages to their users.
 
 Well, I asked the question to a group of pkgsrc developers first, and the
 answer I got was to use The Document Foundation name ;-)
 The wording on the website heavily influenced the discussion towards this
 result.
 
Sigh. Well, the intended meaning is as Michael originally said -
LibreOffice is ok to use, TDF is reserved. Hints on how to improve
the wording appreciated. ;)

 Hmm, another complication here: I'm a committer and I did this sort of work
 in the last few months to port LibreOffice to the DragonFly BSD operating
 system.

Just as an aside - with all that work you've done, we'd be honoured
to receive your application as a TDF member. :)

Hope this helps,

-- Thorsten

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted