of the project?
Thank you,
Allen Pulsifer
--
-
To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands send email to sy...@openoffice.org
with Subject: help
On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:51 +0100, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
The project simply don't need people like you who has
probably never
contributed one line of code but are very good in this kind
of useless
discussion.
I must of missed this email (I did notice Michael's reply), but really, I
I see that Allen wants to continue in developing the project and
product, so please everyone lets Allen do it...
That would be great. As soon as the project is ready to accept LGPL
contributions, then we can make that happen.
All people who don't like it as it is are free to leave
the project
and should spare us with this kind of discussion as long as the
situation doesn't change.
This attitude is very telling. Some people might think that the whole
reason Sun set up OpenOffice.org is to get free
What I would like to consider common sense tells me that of
course you continue to be the owner of the code you
contributed, Caolan continues to be the owner of the code he
contributed...
Apparently you have not read the terms of the copyright assignment.
2. yes, FSF doesn't accept e.g. non-paper-worked contributions to
free software it maintains, e.g. Emacs.
The obvious point, if we must belabor it, is that an organization like FSF
would never take an open source program to which it held an assigned
copyright and re-license it under a
i am speaking as a community member and not as Sun employee ;-)
Three month ago or so we had more or less the same
discussion. I thought
the current situation was clarified and no further discussion is
necessary until Sun brings it up or if Sun would misuse the copyright.
Thank you for
The intent is not to mislead, but present the reality.
I would argue that talk of Joint, and Shared in copyright
assignments (by
contrast) is to market the unpleasant fact with meaningless
friendly sounding terms :-) ie. the plain truth is perhaps
not quite as obvious as you
the means you are using to change the situation (flooding
dev@ list with offtopic) are wrong.
There is nothing off-topic about this discussion. It is highly relevant to
every developer who is not also an employee of Sun Microsystems.
When a developer contributes code to the C# compiler or the
Mono runtime engine, we require that the author grants Novell
the right to relicense his/her contribution under other
licensing terms.
This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to
parties that might not want to
Hello Juergen,
I deleted your message without reading it because I'm not willing to look at
anything that starts with that tone.
Best Regards,
Allen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Hello Mathias,
There is a lot of PR in this issue floating around the internet these days,
most of it coming from Sun. Its clear to me that the goal of this PR is to
maintain the status quo, i.e., ensure that contributions to the project keep
coming in, and that the contributors sign the JCA or
Hello Mathias,
There is a lot of PR in this issue floating around the internet these days,
most of it coming from Sun. Its clear to me that the goal of this PR is to
maintain the status quo, i.e., ensure that contributions to the project keep
coming in, and that the contributors sign the JCA or
Speaking as a community participant...
When I first became involved in OOo, I was not completely comfortable with
the license arrangement, but thought Sun should be given the benefit of the
doubt based on all of their contributions.
However, let's look at this objectively. Here are some facts.
To all the OpenOffice users who might be interesting in trying out IBM Lotus
Symphony (Beta):
DO NOT INSTALL IBM Lotus Symphony (Beta) !!!
I tried it out. It took over all of my OpenDoc file associations, without
warning, and installed itself into a handful of other file associations. IT
Well I tried it out on Windows too and I could install and
de-install it, using the Software option in the System
folder. However, some associations (I think ODT or ODS) did
not get restored correctly.
Hello Rony,
Kindly forgive my confusion. What is the software option in the system
Even OOo won't restore the file associations to the older program...
the easier way to fix it is to repair the OOo setup or reinstall.
Yes, I tried that. OOo very politely respected the Symphony file
associations and did no repair. The only way I got it to work was to delete
all traces of
Can we cull these to at least remove all the milestones
current - 5,
and consider dropping the release candidates and the 1.0.X releases.
What would we do then with the issues which currently have
one of those versions set? We cannot simply remove the
versions, this would violate
Hi all,
Yes, this 'pain-in-the-ass' problem.
I would prefer that all emails from unsubscribed addresses simply be
rejected with an auto-reply sent to the user telling them they need to
subscribe and then resend.
Alternately, these emails could be treated as a subscription request and
Thanks for your effort, Allen. However I'm afraid that your
proposal to default to an application specific filter will
not be accepted. The issue list you have presented in your
initial mail already contained some issues that have been
closed for that reason.
We see OpenOffice.org as an
Yes, that sounds good. I would change it a little bit and
offer showing the filter dialog (that also needs a redesign
BTW). Only offering to open as text is not enough. Especially
text files are detected quite reliably.
But as in most cases where OOo fails to detect the file it
*is* an
Hello Ciao,
Thank you for your comments.
With regard to this specific point:
- The default file type depends on the current application. For
example, from Writer, File | Open by default displays only Text
documents. The other types, including All Files (*.*) can
still be
chosen
OTOH if we didn't use this all documents filter by default
the question remains if it makes sense at all.
Yes, I agree with you. If All documents is not the default then there
might not be much benefit. A better approach might be to give the user an
error or warning message when attempting
An alternate suggestion (if it is easier) is have
File | Open default
to All documents rather than All Files (*.*).
This suggestion was entered as
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=74295
Wouldn't it be consequent to rename the 'file open dialog'
to 'document open
The following enhancement requests are all related:
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10048
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=19918
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=67163
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70421
(and for a counterview, see
in
the File | Open dialog.
This suggestion was entered as
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=74295
Allen
-Original Message-
From: Allen Pulsifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:20 AM
To: dev@openoffice.org
Subject: [dev] File | Open default
Question:
How does OOo locate its scripts directories, i.e.,
$(insturl)/share/scripts and $(userurl)/scripts?
The basic directories, $(insturl)/share/basic and $(userurl)/basic are
configured in share\registry\data\org\openoffice\Office\Paths.xcu, but I can
find no configuration settings in the
Entered as http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73625
-Background-
In Windows, a UNC path to a directory looks like this (see
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311079):
\\server\share\path
According to the file URI spec, Windows UNC paths should be accepted as file
urls if
, 2007 10:27 AM
To: dev@openoffice.org
Subject: Re: [dev] proposal for problematic UNC file url's
Allen Pulsifer wrote:
Entered as http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=73625
Please see my response there.
-Stephan
NOTINCHOOSER excludes it from the filter dialog, the awful dialog
you get when OOo can't find a filter.
Hello Markus,
Thank you for the hint on how to force the filter chooser dialog to appear.
I was able to confirm that the NOTINCHOOSER flag does not work, and entered
a bug report:
I also submitted two bug reports.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70688
http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70687
Thanks Allen, the developer responsible for this is currently
on vacation but he surely will have a look when he is back
end of next
NOTINCHOOSER excludes it from the filter dialog, the awful
dialog you get when OOo can't find a filter.
Hello Mathias,
Thank you, that is helpful.
Is there sample file somewhere that causes OOo to bring up the filter
dialog? I wanted to test NOTINCHOOSER but I'm unable to get this dialog to
But you've hit the nail on the top. We have prepared for two
ways of working with pathes: UserPaths can be overwritten
like described here, InternalPaths are mergeable. So an
admin that wants to write his own path as described by Allen
and doesn't want to allow for changes made by users
Hello Joerg,
Thank you for your response. Just to respond further:
The Current/Default distinction in that place was misguided.
That should really be achieved via layering.
I agree with this.
There are other places in OOo where dynamically created keys have such
significance. This is the
v2.0.4 en-us under WinXP.
Allen
-Original Message-
From: Allen Pulsifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:23 AM
To: dev@openoffice.org
Subject: [dev] documentation for filter flags?
Are the file filter flags documented somewhere?
The flags I'm
v2.0.4 en-us under WinXP.
Allen
-Original Message-
From: Allen Pulsifer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:23 AM
To: dev@openoffice.org
Subject: [dev] documentation for filter flags?
Are the file filter flags documented somewhere?
The flags I'm
I'm looking over the new Path's configuration and it seems to me the
implementation is awkward and does not follow the usually configuration
paradigm.
In OpenOffice.org v2.0.3 and prior, paths were configured via
org.openoffice.Office.Common/Path/Default and
I would also be interested in changing RestrictedPath from an
environmental variable to a configuration (.xcs/.xcu) setting.
I'm realizing that it make this useful, a system administrator would
probably need a way to insert the user's username or WinNT domain\username
into the path. So for
I'm trying to get RestrictedPath working, as described under
Declaring the Permitted Folders in
http://ui.openoffice.org/specification/FileDialog_RestrictedPaths.sxw
I'm using OOo v2.0.3 under WinXP.
Do you use system dialogs, or OOo's own dialogs? The feature
only works with
Is there a way to select OOo's dialogs, either at run-time or
build-time?
At runtime,
Tools|Options|OpenOffice.org|General|[X] Use OpenOffice.org
dialogs is the place to control this.
That and the corresponding configuration option
With that setting, RestrictedPath mostly worked. With only one
directory in the RestrictedPath, the behavior was not quite what I
expected. It allowed me to navigate up to the parent
directories, all
the way to the root (c:\). It didn't allow me to save there, but it
was
Ah, I'm looking forward to when you come asking *where* in
the code to fix it :)
That's easy to find. There are only about a dozen matches in the source
code for RestrictedPath and RestrictedPaths ;-)
The idea was to have a feature which prevents users from
changing the respective
The most correct would be to use a configuration value with
no default,
which means you get a NIL value (a VOID Any in UNO) when
reading. Then
you could have
VOID - look at environment
Non NIL - Use the value
IMHO, that is overkill. It is true that would allow an empty
I'm trying to get RestrictedPath working, as described under Declaring
the Permitted Folders in
http://ui.openoffice.org/specification/FileDialog_RestrictedPaths.sxw
I'm using OOo v2.0.3 under WinXP.
If I set the environment variable RestrictedPath, my user directory is set
to the first
44 matches
Mail list logo
