Re: ooowiki continuation (was: Re: OpenOffice)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> wrote:
>
>> From: Simos Xenitellis [mailto:simos.li...@googlemail.com]
>
>> > Maybe I would also like to be a participant in the
>> LibreOffice Certification
>> > Program, but I am a free spirit and prerequisites such as a) in:
>> >
>> http://www.documentfoundation.org/assets/Certification/tdf-cer
>> tificationcodeofcond
>> > uct.pdf
>> >
>> > are unfortunately too political for me.
>>
>> There are four reasonable points in this PDF. Which one would make it
>> "too political" for you?
>
> I have written:
>
> "...I am a free spirit and prerequisites _such as a)_ in:..."
>
> And so I mean point a)
>

The text there says:

«Certified Professionals conduct the business and provide the services
in a manner
that does not harm the reputation of The Document Foundation;...»

Therefore, if you were a Certified Professional, you are expected *to
conduct the business* and *provide the services*
in a manner that does not harm the reputation of the TDF.

There would be a much deeper problem if a Certified Professional could
not contain themselves
*while* conducting the business and providing the services.

Simos

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: ooowiki continuation (was: Re: OpenOffice)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> From: Thorsten Behrens [mailto:t...@libreoffice.org]
>
>> I think at the time of your posting, that topic was somewhat on
>> hold/stalled. Being 2 months late to a discussion sometimes gets you
>> no reaction, simply because noone has anything to add (you were
>> already referencing the original libreoffice de-discuss thread).
>
> I think we both know that the reasons are others.
>
>> If openoffice.info wants to be a stakeholder, we can certainly include
>> you (or other reps) in the technical discussions.
>
> No thanks. de.openoffice.info is an independent forum.
>
>> Perhaps an option to discuss further details would be the upcoming
>> community meeting of the LibreOffice DE-project (probably on the
>> weekend June 25th, location TBD)? Let me know if you'd like to be kept
>> in the loop there.
>
> Thanks, but I'm working for Apache OpenOffice. For my voluntary work that is
> enough for me.
>
> But please do not worry, professionally, I also provide support for 
> LibreOffice.
>
> Maybe I would also like to be a participant in the LibreOffice Certification
> Program, but I am a free spirit and prerequisites such as a) in:
> http://www.documentfoundation.org/assets/Certification/tdf-certificationcodeofcond
> uct.pdf
>
> are unfortunately too political for me.

There are four reasonable points in this PDF. Which one would make it
"too political" for you?

Simos

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: future of OpenOffice

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann
 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet.
>
> If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice
> versa.
>
> We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
> topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
>

There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org
that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice.

I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply show
a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options.
Specifically, it should show

 Apache OpenOffice   Libreoffice NeoOffice
 -> apache.openoffice.org  -> www.libreoffice.org  -> www.neooffice.org

I am happy to design and propose such a page.

Simos

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: Differentiate or Die

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Phillip Rhodes
 wrote:
> Sure, I don't claim it's a perfect analogy between "their" world and the
> world of F/OSS.
> But I think the broad point generalizes well enough to apply to us:
>
> Have *some* differentiating factor that defines why a group of people would
> find your
> product more desirable than the other options.
>
> If, for us, that is "it's almost like MS Office, but free" and we're good
> with that, then that's
> cool.  But I kinda think we ought to stretch for something a little more
> specific, especially
> given that "almost like MS Office, but free" isn't a unique position.
>
> And I'm not proposing any big, elaborate "process" or suggesting we
> radically change
> directions (unless we want too!) but rather just saying we could/should
> spend some
> time thinking about what makes AOO special.
>

LibreOffice has a list of big ideas, called "crazy ideas", at
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Crazy_Ideas
These require big effort and it would be great if an office suite
would implement them.
Notable examples are
1. multi process instances
2. split MSOffice support in library

Picking one of those and implementing it, would allow to differentiate.

Simos

> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:41 AM, Jörg Schmidt  wrote:
>
>>
>> > From: Pedro Giffuni [mailto:p...@apache.org]
>>
>> > The thing about so-called "marketing gurus" is that their assumptions
>> > about how the markets work may break down when we are talking about
>> > software that has zero cost.
>> >
>> > I will simplify the marketing issue making a bold statement: "We have
>> > millions of users because we do 80% of what the market leader
>> > does but
>> > with 0% of the price."
>>
>>
>> No, the success of free software is not a question of price.
>>
>> The development model of free software is something else, but it's not
>> free. That is not the goal.
>>
>> read:
>> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
>>
>> Furthermore:
>> The development and use of OpenOffice is not free, because developers have
>> to be paid by their companies or donate their own time. Users have cost for
>> installation, maintenance and staff training.
>>
>> The work of Apache is also not free, because Apache needs donations to be
>> able to work.
>>
>> For example see:
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/sponsorship.html
>>
>> on:
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
>>
>> you can see that the sum of the sponsorship is (currently, per year):
>>
>> Platinum: 700,000$
>> Gold: 320,000$
>> Silver: 260,000$
>> Bronze: 90,000$
>>
>>
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 7:27 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote:
> WARNING.  The ApacheOpenOffice. Org site described in this exchange is a 
> malicious site. DO NOT INVESTIGATE.
>

The malicious website has the Google AdWords UA ID "UA-19309218-3".
That ID is also used in the following websites,
http://pub-db.com/google-analytics/UA-19309218.html

Simos

>  - Dennis
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mark Thomas [mailto:ma...@apache.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2016 02:08
>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
>>
>> On 2016-09-06 17:06 (+0100), Simos Xenitellis
>> <simos.li...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just responding to these specific bits with my Apache Brand Management
>> Committee member hat on.
>>
>> > which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOfficeâ„¢
>> and
>> > OpenOffice.org®.
>> > However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
>> > "Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
>>
>> Which is as expected. Note the TM. That denotes that "Apache OpenOffice"
>> is a trademark, just not a registered one. It is a gross simplification
>> but, for the ASF, it makes little/no difference to our rights whether it
>> is registered or not. Registration does make it easier to enforce
>> compliance should the trademark be infringed.
>>
>> > It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
>> > for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
>> > But no "Apache OpenOffice".
>> > Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
>> > done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".
>>
>> If someone other than the ASF tried to register "Apache OpenOffice" as a
>> trademark we would oppose that registration and I am very confident we
>> would be successful.
>>
>> Domain registration is not trademark registration.
>>
>> The registration of ApacheOpenOffice.org looks to be abusive. The Apache
>> OpenOffice PMC has some options for dealing with that. How they wish to
>> proceed is a decision for them. Note that such issues are generally
>> dealt with in private, not public, so you are unlikely to see a
>> discussion about what to do about this specific issue on a public ASF
>> mailing list.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)

[Simos Xenitellis]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
 wrote:
> As different "technical press" outlets make their own derivations of other 
> articles, there is incorrect quotation and reference to historical matters 
> that have nothing to do with the present state and how we move forward.
>
> For me, the LWN and ArsTechnica coverage is relatively fact-based.  Now, 
> there are some others that tend to be more responsible with regard to 
> journalism:
>
>  * PCWorld 
> .
>
>  * ZDNet, on the other hand, is lazily derivative by borrowing on other 
> articles.  It also shows ignorance of how Apache projects operate when it 
> mentions "lack of funding." and perpetuates the idea that Microsoft Office or 
> LibreOffice be switched to in the CVE advisory.  The statement about other 
> products was for testing dodgy Impress documents that users might be 
> concerned about.  In any case, now that there is a hotfix, Version 2.0 of the 
> advisory does not need to address that. 
> .
>

A common mistake with all articles (well, apart from the LWN one) is
that they use the plain "OpenOffice" name to describe what is
officially "Apache OpenOffice".
AFAIK, the project does not have a trademark on "OpenOffice", but does
on "Apache OpenOffice".
The main website, at http://www.openoffice.org/, is a mix of "Apache
OpenOffice" and plain "OpenOffice" which is confusing.

I checked the documentation at http://openoffice.apache.org/trademarks.html
which claims that the Apache Foundation has the Apache OpenOffice™ and
OpenOffice.org®.
However, my search at the US Trademark database does not show an
"Apache OpenOffice" registered trademark.
It does show a live trademark for the old "OpenOffice.org" and also
for "LibreOffice" (for The Document Foundation).
But no "Apache OpenOffice".
Anyone can file for a trademark for "Apache OpenOffice", as they have
done already with the domain "ApacheOpenOffice.org".

Simos

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org