Il 01/11/2010 20.50, BRM ha scritto:
While IANAL, to my understanding at least the US requires explicit documentation
of copyright assignment.
So a license stating such would not work.
In many countries, software licenses are considered contracts (by law or
jurisprudence) and *must* be
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 11:34:11 +, Michael Meeks wrote:
The more interesting thing to me is - why would you want to remove the
PDF Import ? or the Presenter Console ?
Because I don't like that additional complexity in the UI? (Just an
example) There are valid reasons why I would want to
Il 01/11/2010 23.51, Thorsten Behrens ha scritto:
b) OASIS, for very good practical reasons, only wants to standardize
what has been successfully implemented (by at least three
independent products, even) - so out of necessity, you'll need
implementations of not-yet-standardized
Gianluca Turconi wrote:
I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with OOo
over the years.
For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
those who don't care about politics with software,
I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.
From a user's perspective, it always seemed like the Java portions of OOo
were shoehorned in. Starting a JVM eats up unneccessary memory and takes
time. One of the most common complaints of OOo is that it is a bloated app
that
According to me, Libre Office is developed primary on C++ with GTK, just the
extensions are on Java.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM, T. J. Brumfield enderand...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly question.
From a user's perspective, it always seemed
Hello Leif,
Very interesting and important question. See below.
Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 12:49:16 +0100,
Leif Lodahl leiflod...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi all,
I am about to answer to a letter from the Danish Expert committee
for open standards settled by the Danish Government.
I have been
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:
1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very complex
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Peter Rodwell pe...@intorg.org wrote:
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:
Did
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Peter Rodwell pe...@intorg.org wrote:
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:
1.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Peter Rodwell pe...@intorg.org wrote:
If this stupid comment is typical of this forum, then I'm out
of here.
I don't think we need Microsoft shills anyway.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines:
Gianluca Turconi wrote:
However, what it works it isn't always the best *legal* solution.
Hi Gianluca,
oh, I certainly agree on this. As usual, the challenge is to hit the
sweet spot, between attracting developers, and satisfying other
requirements.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe
2010/11/1 Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com:
Hi Andrea,
...
Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice
developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be
in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice)
but cannot
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/inside-the-openofficeorg-coup/7681
http://www.entirelyopensource.com/Blog-and-Opinion/Inside-the-OpenOffice-org-coup
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Hi Cor:
2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages.
[snip]
OK, that is easy to handle with a trick as user, but possibly also an relative
easy fix (1)?
As I said, when you have to do this constantly, dozens of times a day, it does
become a real issue.
I would
T. J. Brumfield wrote:
There were several old, often commented on, and often requested bug fixes
and features that didn't receive much attention or weren't resolved with OOo
over the years.
For those who may not be aware of the reasons for the shift/fork, or for
those who don't care about
Hi all,
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Florian Effenberger
flo...@documentfoundation.org wrote:
Hi,
this is just a short reminder: Tomorrow's steering committee phone
conference is public! For details, please refer to
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Steering_Committee_Meetings
For
Le 2010-11-02 11:48, Peter Rodwell a écrit :
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:
1. Complete file compatibility. I
Le 2010-11-02 11:53, Robert Parker a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Peter Rodwellpe...@intorg.org wrote:
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
Peter Rodwell wrote:
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:
1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle
Le 2010-11-02 11:48, Peter Rodwell a écrit :
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this has
already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office 2010
instead of switching to OO/LO:
1. Complete file compatibility. I
The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
radically altering the UI is unnecessary.
One of the advantages of
Hi Marc:
As in all public mailists, just ignore the negative comments. Robert does not
speak for people who are interested in
fixing problems or concerns of users.
Thanks! I've been around mail lists long enough to recognise the type.
Just ignore him.
Which is exactly what I plan to do.
Has anyone considered the UI of IBM Symphony 3, its a step in the right
direction .
And now that most monitors have larger breath , we can use it to our advantage.
Animesh Meher
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:05:38 -0500
Subject: [tdf-discuss] LibreOffice UI should be tweaked, not reinvented
Le 2010-11-02 12:05, Frank Esposito a écrit :
The point of the MSO-to-ODF and ODF-to-MSO converters not working 100% and
being a deal-breaker has been raised several times already. But I am not
sure as to what is being done as far as development. I think the devs are
just trying to clean up the
Hi Marc:
We would need an example of an incompatible file for us to see and examine.
Could you provide us with an example?
I can't supply any of the files since they are the property of my clients and I'm bound by some very strict
non-disclosure agreements (they have the right to tear my
Le 2010-11-02 12:42, Cor Nouws a écrit :
2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages. As
I'm translating, I usually come across a word or phrase that I
know will be repeated throughout the document so I search and replace
it to avoid having to type it continuously. I do
Quoting Robert Derman:
On a separate subject, to Peter above, I can see where your profession
certainly justifies the expenditure for MS
Office, I would hope however that you at least downloaded and installed OOo/LO
in addition, since it costs little or
nothing and might at times prove
Le 2010-11-02 11:40, Miguel Angel Frías Bonfil a écrit :
According to me, Libre Office is developed primary on C++ with GTK, just the
extensions are on Java.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM, T. J. Brumfieldenderand...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm an user, and not a developer. So perhaps this is a silly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2010 03:36 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
I'm not aware of?
For those that have accessibility requirements, the Java is mandatory.
OTOH, even with Java, LibO is not
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Marc Par wrote:
[snip shortened stuff]
Good points Frank and we also have to consider that Italo, our
marketing guru, now says that in some European countries, OOo/LigO
commands 20% market share and that ODF adoption is on the rise and
is quite established.
Well I
Le 2010-11-02 14:17, Peter Rodwell a écrit :
Hi Marc:
We would need an example of an incompatible file for us to see and
examine. Could you provide us with an example?
I can't supply any of the files since they are the property of my
clients and I'm bound by some very strict non-disclosure
Quoting T. J. Brumfield:
One of the advantages of LibreOffice/OOo over MS Office is that the
interface is familiar and easy to grasp. And while the Ribbon interface has
improved from 2007 to 2010, it is still unpopular for a reason. The core
ideal of a dynamic interface that shows the most
Quoting Marc Paré:
And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are power users
like Peter, it may be difficult to
rationalize using LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an ODF format
which would simply work. There is always
the option for Peter to propose a change
mostly because they can't afford (financially and timewise) the risk of
having to re-train thousands of users with the productivity drop that this
would involve
I have to say, if that was the case, then no one would have upped to
2007/2010. The last company I worked for who upgraded spent
On 02/11/10 12:05 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
The OOo team has been working two years on Project Renaissance. And there is
a long running thread here in the discuss archives of a UI prototype. While
that particular prototype looks clean/sharp, I think all this dicussion on
radically altering the
+1 for getting rid of java.
2010/11/2 jonathon toki.kant...@gmail.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2010 03:36 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
Is there a technical advantage of running the wizards and such in Java that
I'm not aware of?
For those that have
On Tue, 02 Nov 2010, Peter Rodwell wrote:
Quoting Marc Paré:
And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are
power users like Peter, it may be difficult to rationalize using
LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an ODF format
which would simply work. There is
Quoting Frank Esposito:
mostly because they can't afford (financially and timewise) the risk of
having to re-train thousands of users with the productivity drop that this
would involve
I have to say, if that was the case, then no one would have upped to
2007/2010. The last company I worked
+1 for getting rid of java.
+2 for getting rid of java.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly
Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
+1 for getting rid of java.
+2 for getting rid of java.
Me too.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive:
Le 2010-11-02 14:53, Peter Rodwell a écrit :
Quoting Marc Paré:
And yes, MSO format conversions are not 100% and where there are power
users like Peter, it may be difficult to
rationalize using LibO when his customers are unwilling to adopt an
ODF format which would simply work. There is
Quoting Ernst W. Winter:
Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?
Since I'm in Spain and not in Munich, I have no idea.
I do think where there is a willing there will be a way. If Govermnet
Authorities can change, why can't a corporation change.
Public
I'm moving this into another thread. Jonathon suggested that LibO fails at
accesibility requirements. Doing a few quick Google searches, it seems that
OOo and thusly LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of
screen readers and braille devices. This is primarily used for Windows.
On 2010-11-02 8:12 AM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL, and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much
The discussion of why companies should or can't migrate away from MS Office
or proprietary document formats is a bit off-topic. I'm also assuming most
of us have had this discussion at length before as well. I'm assuming if
you're on this list that you are in favor of open software and open
On 2010-11-02 11:48 AM, Peter Rodwell wrote:
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
2010 instead of switching to OO/LO:
1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with
very complex formatting. These come from my clients, all of whom use
MS
On 2010-11-02 12:05 PM, Frank Esposito wrote:
File compatibility should be a priority, in the very least opening and
saving MSO files with full compatibility
There will *never* be 100% compatibility... like I said earlier, even
Microsoft doesn't achieve that between different versions of its
On 2010-11-02 12:07 PM, Robert Parker wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Peter Rodwell pe...@intorg.org wrote:
If this stupid comment is typical of this forum, then I'm out
of here.
I don't think we need Microsoft shills anyway.
Robert - if you don't have anything constructive to say,
True. However, the good news is that the 2007 and 2010 formats are largely
similar and are XML based. The old formats were binary and kept changing.
Since the format isn't changing as much, and the new format is easier to
reverse-engineer, now is a good opportunity for OOo/LibO to catch up and
Quoting Marc Paré:
I understand that perfectly well. I am a teacher and school boards are
comparable to major corporations, I sit on an IT
committee (software acquisition) and we talk often about migration. But, the
question of IT support for OS and software
is a large issue. They are more
Quoting Charles Marcus:
There will *never* be 100% compatibility... like I said earlier, even
Microsoft doesn't achieve that between different versions of its own
programs.
Oddly, I can't offhand remember having any backwards compatibility problems.
I have had very occasional problems loading
A big +1
That's why I started the thread about better defaults: this will help
a lot more than a new, shiny but unknown interface.
OOo/LibO interface IS modern and flexible (contextual toolbars,
dockers... everything customizable), but it have horrible defaults
values.
A couple of fixes here and
2010/11/2 Marc Paré m...@marcpare.com
Le 2010-11-02 15:14, Frank Esposito a écrit :
+1 for getting rid of java.
+2 for getting rid of java.
Me too.
Me three.
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to
discuss+h...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org
Posting
I answered a posting from Ernst W. Winter:
Yes sounds good. How did the city of Munich change 14,000 PC to OOo?
with a somewhat cursory I don't know but the question piqued my interest.
A few minutes' Googling came up with the answer: It didn't.
Reports (e.g., at
Hi T.J.!
Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 13:05 -0500 schrieb T. J. Brumfield:
I truly believe the current approach works and should be maintained,
but
improved. There might be some slight tweaks in how the menus are
organized.
Toolbar defaults might be optimized. And the overall UI could be
In data martedì 02 novembre 2010 16:48:46, Peter Rodwell ha scritto:
I have only today joined this discussion so I don't know whether this
has already been discussed or not.
There are two reasons why I have just paid money to upgrade to Office
2010 instead of switching to OO/LO:
1.
Quoting T. J. Brumfield:
As someone who uses both MS Office and OOo on a daily basis, I find the OOo
FAR MORE USABLE for an advanced user. Every day there are tasks I want to
accomplish in MS Office, but I can't find the appropriate option in the
Ribbon interface. It drives me nuts.
It drives
On Wednesday 03 Nov 2010 06:11:02 Peter Rodwell wrote:
Hi Cor:
2. Search and replace. I work with large documents, often 400+ pages.
[snip]
OK, that is easy to handle with a trick as user, but possibly also an
relative easy fix (1)?
As I said, when you have to do this constantly,
Hi T.J.!
Am Dienstag, den 02.11.2010, 16:27 -0500 schrieb T. J. Brumfield:
Restructuring the menus isn't the massive drastic change many people have
talked about. I'm fine with restructuring the menus, and encourage it.
However, all the Renaissance mock-ups/prototypes I've seen seem to mimic
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 15:32 -0500, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
Can we get a list of all the components that require Java that would need to
be reimplemented?
To start a list we could add:
+ XSL transformations (an easy hack to replace by libxsl)
+ Base HSQLDB backend
+ Base report builder
I think there is a difference between removing Java as a dependency needed
for out-of-the-box features, and blocking people from extending the
application with Java extensions. I think keeping the Java UNO bridge does
make sense, but users shouldn't need to fire up a JVM for basic/common
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2010 03:48 PM, Peter Rodwell wrote:
1. Complete file compatibility. I frequently handle documents with very
complex formatting.
Funny thing here.
I get better compatibility using OOo and LibO, than I did when I was
using MSO. I still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2010 07:56 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of screen readers and
braille devices.
Screen reading is not the only thing that that API can be used for.
Is there a better alternative for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/02/2010 08:25 PM, RGB ES wrote:
Agree. Java affect key components, not only extensions:
base needs java, and as consequence the bibliographic database too.
Is that Base as in the database engine, or Base as in the front end?
If the former,
T. J. Brumfield wrote:
I'm moving this into another thread. Jonathon suggested that LibO fails at
accesibility requirements. Doing a few quick Google searches, it seems that
OOo and thusly LibO uses the Java Accessibility API to enable the use of
screen readers and braille devices. This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/03/2010 12:08 AM, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
+ Base HSQLDB backend
That would mean: ship a different database with by default,
SQLite could easily be added.
would still need that backend otherwise you'd introduce a major
68 matches
Mail list logo
