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

2011-01-28 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Andre,

On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 17:37 +0100, André Schnabel wrote:
  Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name, or business name
   without explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited.
 
 just to get this right: business name means name of a product, 
 service, company, organization

Good point; 'business' is confusing, I switched it to company name to
make it more comprehensible:

Thus uses of the Marks in a domain name or company name without
explicit written permission from TDF are prohibited.

Wrt. product name - hopefully everyone distributing it calls the
product LibreOffice - this is our plan at least, so forbidding that
would not be ideal (cf. permitted use).

Thanks,

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



-- 
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 ***


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

2011-01-28 Thread Alexander Thurgood
Le 28/01/11 13:47, Michael Meeks a écrit :

Hi Michael,

   I suppose they need permission :-)
 

With the caveat of the fair use exception, which does not require
permission. The notion of fair use varies from country to country. In
some countries, you are even allowed to use registered trademarks in
parodied form, without impugning the TM holder' rights.


Alex


-- 
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 ***


[steering-discuss] Re: SC Vote on first members of TDF

2011-01-28 Thread Italo Vignoli

On 1/28/11 4:51 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

*** Steering Committee Members  their deputies only ***



   1)  approve that people listed at
 http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/ are current members
 of TDF according to our ByLaws


YES


   2) approve Fridrich Strba as member of TDF


YES

--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: italo.vign...@gmail.com

--
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: [steering-discuss] SC Vote on first members of TDF

2011-01-28 Thread Tom Davies
I'm not a voting member but it all looks good to me, apart from being inquorate 
and these glitches are unavoidable sometimes.

Many thanks to all of you for an excellent first release and an amazing job in 
setting up community systems so quickly!
Congrats, thanks and regards from
Tom :)






From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org
To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Cc: Michael Meeks michael.me...@novell.com; Thorsten Behrens 
tbehr...@novell.com; Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com; André Schnabel 
andre.schna...@gmx.net; gautier.sophie gautier.sop...@gmail.com; 
flo...@documentfoundation.org; Olivier Hallot dir...@broffice.org; Italo 
Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com; Claudio F Filho filh...@gmail.com; Leif 
Lodahl l...@magenta-aps.dk; Davide Dozza dav...@flossconsulting.it; Cor 
Nouws c...@nouenoff.nl; Christoph Noack christ...@dogmatux.com
Sent: Fri, 28 January, 2011 15:51:36
Subject: [steering-discuss] SC Vote on first members of TDF

*** Steering Committee Members  their deputies only ***

As we haven't reached a quorum last night we need to decide for
practical reasons on two specific questions. These questions relate to
the formation of the Membership Committee. By decision of the SC we
have appointed André Schnabel, Sophie Gautier and Fridrich Strba as the
three members of this Membership Council. 

But we need to regularly jumpstart the committee and the membership
formation process. We should thus vote on two specific points of order:


  1)  approve that people listed at
http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/ are current members
of TDF according to our ByLaws 
  2) approve Fridrich Strba as member of TDF 

We are going to vote here on this list and the vote will be open for
the next 24 hours. 

Two simple rules:
- vote yes or no for each question, by sending your mail to this list
  with 1) yes/no 2) yes/no

- deputies can vote if their corresponding SC member is not available. 

Best,

-- 
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 ***


  
-- 
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: [steering-discuss] SC Vote on first members of TDF

2011-01-28 Thread Florian Effenberger

Hello,

Charles-H. Schulz wrote on 2011-01-28 16.51:


   1)  approve that people listed at
 http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/  are current members
 of TDF according to our ByLaws


yes


   2) approve Fridrich Strba as member of TDF


yes

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 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: [steering-discuss] About Membership Committee

2011-01-28 Thread David Nelson
Hi, :-)

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 20:45, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net wrote:
 I'd guess sooner or later three MC members will not be enough to process
 all the applications and review all types of activities.

If you need a hand, please feel free to invite me.

David Nelson

-- 
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 ***



[tdf-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-design] Breaking out of the box (applications versus objects)

2011-01-28 Thread Mike Houben
Hi Greg, *,

yes I read it all and I'm fully with you. But what you are proposing here
is not a Design choice it's a general choice and should be on the discuss
Mailinglist from libreoffice. discuss@documentfoundation.org

What I can say is that for the moment they have all the different
applications work with shared scripts and all, to minimize the data they
use. (I'm not going further because I'm not quit sure)

I have forwarded this mail ;-)

Houbsi

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:44:46 +, noh.way.jose
noh.way.j...@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
 I'm new to this community, so please forgive me if the topic I'd like to 
 discuss has already been aired.
 
 To set the scene, first a bit of summarised, probably partisan and
probably
 
 only partially accurate context. I point this out because I wouldn't want
 the 
 thread to spin off into pedantic historic details and corrections.
 
 Having been around the computer industry for many years now, I have kept 
 abreast of computing advancements by reading the industry news,
developing 
 products and using them. A pattern of acquisitions, mergers,aggregations,
 best 
 practice, standards and plain copying has been going on so relentlessly
 that I 
 believe that the fruits of these enterprises no longer adequately meet
 users 
 needs as well as can be. 
 
 The original modern interface (Xerox Star) didn't differentiate by
 application 
 but by  objects familiar to users. The application rot started with the 
 commercial versions of this approach but really got application centric
 with 
 Windows '95. My rough recollection is that MS Office started as a bunch
of 
 acquisitions that map pretty much to the applications we see now, whether
 MS, 
 OOO or LO. That is; a word processor, a presentation manager, a
spreadsheet
 
 and a database. Leaving the DB out of the argument for the moment, as a
non
 
 presentation centric technology, I'd like to propose Libre Office
consider
 a 
 mid to long term strategy to ditch the artificial boundaries between 
 applications. Let us return to the idea of supporting users' needs
without 
 filtering them through artificial application capabilities!
 
 Instead of applications, let's have a document, a variety of choices of 
 rendering the document (print, screen, presentation, web, edit,
 collaborative 
 edit, c.) and tools. The tools can still be categorised, but not as they
 are 
 in applications, where the application is a hard boundary. The tools here

 could all be used, irrespective of the presentation mechanism.
 Categorisation 
 of the tools need only be done as a means to support user tasks, perhaps
 along 
 multiple dimensions, using tags. This proposal means only having to
develop
 a 
 tool once and allowing the concurrent availability of tools that the 
 artificial applications boundaries would normally exclude. For example,
DTP
 
 tools, such as layout grids and text flow, which could be used alongside
 more 
 traditional word processing tools in documents, presentations and other 
 formats.
 
 Of course, the toolset and the rendering mechanisms could be extended in
a 
 modular way, making the development time-line much more appropriate to an
 open 
 source community, with competition for tool developers to build a better
 tool. 
 If the core design team act in an editorial and standards capacity, then
 the 
 result can hang together seamlessly. (Apple seems to have cracked this a
 bit 
 ;o)
 
 Enough rambling from me. I'd be really interested to see if there's
anyone 
 else who gets what I'm on about and whether there's enough interest to
 start 
 investigating in more detail. If on the other hand you think I've got it
 all 
 wrong, I'm happy to defend my views or admit defeat, depending on the 
 feedback.
 
 If you read this far, well done :o)
 
 Cheers,
 
 Greg

-- 
Mike Houben
UI - Coding - Animation 

http://www.crazyhstudio.net

-- 
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] test - having list access problems

2011-01-28 Thread Sigrid Carrera
Hi Alan,

first, this kind of question is more suited for the users-list
(us...@libreoffice.org). I'll try to answer your question nonetheless.


2011/1/27 alan c aecl...@candt.waitrose.com:
 On 27/01/11 18:11, alan c wrote:

 test - having list access problems

 odd. This message seemed to get through ok, but other messages do not.


 Just in case it does get through ok, I will also state here my real problem!
 It is not clear to me how I should install LO 3.3.
 I have torrented down
 LibO_3.3.0_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz
 and also
 LibO_3.3.0_Linux_x86_langpack-deb_en-GB.tar.gz

 I have then extracted and obtained
 LibO_3.3.0rc4_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US
 and
 LibO_3.3.0rc4_Linux_x86_langpack-deb_en-GB

 I am totally confused at the extracted packages:
 for example, one folder contains a bout 50 deb files!

 I am using ubuntu  10.04.1.
 Is there a help page somewhere for guidance?
 tia

You can find installation instructions here:
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/installation/linux/

But to make it short:
open a terminal, change into the sub-directory that contains all the
.deb-files and run the following command (as root or by using sudo)

dpkg -i *.deb

This will install then all the files in the correct order. You might
have to install the desktop-integration package as well. Do the same
for your language-pack.

Hope, that this helps you.


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] test - having list access problems

2011-01-28 Thread Carlo Strata

Hi Florian!

This happens also with, e.g., us...@it.libreoffice.org

I think it's a true problem!

Carlo


Il 27/01/2011 21:02, Florian Effenberger ha scritto:

As the list name says, it is an ANNOUNCEMENT list. You can NOT post
there. :)

yahoo-pier_andreit wrote on 2011-01-27 20.15:

confirm the problem at Italian listannou...@it.libreoffice.org
,
I sent subscription mail
I received subscription confirmation mail
I sent back subscription mail
I received confirmation welcome of subscription
I received also an options available mail
I sent a test
I don't receive any mail
I sent again subscription mail
I received an already inscription mail
I sent another test
I din't receive any mail

what happens??:-)




--
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] help - can not understand how to install LO3.3

2011-01-28 Thread Michael Wheatland
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Nicola Di Deo nic...@mailopen.net wrote:
 On 27/01/2011 20:25, alan c wrote:

 It is not clear to me how I should install LO 3.3.
 I have torrented down
 LibO_3.3.0_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz
 and also
 LibO_3.3.0_Linux_x86_langpack-deb_en-GB.tar.gz

 I have then extracted and obtained
 LibO_3.3.0rc4_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US
 and
 LibO_3.3.0rc4_Linux_x86_langpack-deb_en-GB

 I am totally confused at the extracted packages:
 for example, one folder contains a bout 50 deb files!

 I am using ubuntu  10.04.1.
 Is there a help page somewhere for guidance?
 tia



 1) extract all files
 2) open terminal
 3) cd
 /home/yourhome/wheredownloadedfiles/LibO_3.3.0rc4_Linux_x86_install-deb_en-US/DEBS
 4) sudo apt-get remove libreoffice*.*
 5) sudo dpkg -i ./*.deb
 6) cd ./desktop-integration
 7) sudo dpkg -i ./*.deb

 Do the same for the other package

 Done

Does running the executable file ./update work as an install also?
This is a file that comes packaged with the download.

-- 
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 ***


[tdf-discuss] feature request, calc cell content copy behaviour

2011-01-28 Thread e-letter
Readers,

m$ excel allows content in cells a1, a3, a5 to be selected and copied
to a7, a9, a11. This is not possible in calc. A feature request
please.

-- 
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: Hate to mention this but

2011-01-28 Thread Mark Preston
Yeah, sorry about this NoOp - I should have mentioned we tried that
but got complete gibberish.

On 27/01/2011 23:27, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/27/2011 02:50 PM, Mark Preston wrote:
 The other day we were sent a document but the sender had - presumably
 by mistake - a template rather than document and in the DOTX format.
 Searching the web, we found this is a horrible format with which an
 awful lot of people have had problems with this format and even the
 Microsoft Word Viewer will not handle it.

 I just want to check that, along with the DOCX formats, LibreOffice
 will also be able to open DOTX - and, of course, recognise them as a
 template rather than a document.

 
 File|Open|File type: you will find dotx at 'Microsoft Word 2007 XML
 Template'.

-- 
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: LibreOffice Final or still RC4 (64 Deb)

2011-01-28 Thread Johanes Lee

MD5sums ... why didn't I think of that?

Thanks n regards


On 01/28/2011 09:54 AM, NoOp wrote:

On 01/27/2011 05:01 PM, Johanes Lee wrote:

Hi,

I downloaded LibreOffice 64-bit for Deb Version:
LibO_3.3.0_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US.tar.gz

But extracted as following directory
LibO_3.3.0rc4_Linux_x86-64_install-deb_en-US

Install success,

Found this version information in the About screen:
LibreOffice 3.3.0
OOO330m19 (Build:6)
tag libreoffice-3.3.0.4

Did I download and install the latest version  of LibreOffice?

Yes. MD5sums are the same on both.






--
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] Re: SC Vote on first members of TDF

2011-01-28 Thread Michael Meeks
Thorsten is on vacation, so as his deputy I say:

On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 16:51 +0100, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
   1)  approve that people listed at
 http://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/ are current members
 of TDF according to our ByLaws 

YES;

   2) approve Fridrich Strba as member of TDF 

YES

:-)

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



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

2011-01-28 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Alex,

On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 15:00 +0100, Alexander Thurgood wrote:
  I suppose they need permission :-)
..
 With the caveat of the fair use exception, which does not require

Sure, sure - however, we cannot write a single document for every
jurisdiction that covers all notions of fair-use, and is yet readable,
and helpful.

Certainly - copyright only works in some jurisdictions - but we still
have licenses left and right that assume it works everywhere :-) So - do
you see a problem with broadly laying out what we do and don't expect ?

Honestly, I expect the SC to be very forgiving for all legitimate and
constructive users.

ATB,

Michael.

-- 
 michael.me...@novell.com  , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot



-- 
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 ***


[tdf-discuss] EPS images in ODF documents

2011-01-28 Thread Magnus Johansson

Hello! I write books containing a lot of EPS images. When I have tried to use
OpenOffice I have not been satisfied with the rendition of the inserted EPS
images. Is LibreOffice better than OpenOffice in this respect?

Regards,
Magnus Johansson
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/EPS-images-in-ODF-documents-tp2367354p2367354.html
Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

-- 
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] EPS images in ODF documents

2011-01-28 Thread RGB ES
It is not. During edition you can only see the raster preview (when
available). But you can still use eps images on Writer without too
much problems: you just need not to use the native pdf export. Use a
postscript printer driver to print to a file instead, and then convert
that postscript file to pdf using, for example, ghostscript.

2011/1/28 Magnus Johansson e.m.johans...@spray.se:

 Hello! I write books containing a lot of EPS images. When I have tried to use
 OpenOffice I have not been satisfied with the rendition of the inserted EPS
 images. Is LibreOffice better than OpenOffice in this respect?

 Regards,
 Magnus Johansson
 --
 View this message in context: 
 http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/EPS-images-in-ODF-documents-tp2367354p2367354.html
 Sent from the Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 --
 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 ***



[tdf-discuss] Re: The Document Foundation launches LibreOffice 3.3

2011-01-28 Thread NoOp
On 01/27/2011 03:34 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
 Hi there,
 
 On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 18:43 -0800, NoOp wrote:
 It also still uses soffice.exe et all in Windows; meaning that LO still
 takes over OOo if both are installed in parallel.
 
   Unfortunately, there is some inevitability of conflict here. This would
 have always been the situation between StarOffice and OpenOffice in the
 past eg. AFAIK (and I am no expert), we would both want to clobber the
 same COM component names - and remove them socially on uninstall etc.
 Short of the typical I notice XYZ other app is the default, do you want
 to change to me type code that would need adding on both sides, there
 will be issues here for a while.
 
  The latter seems MS like; are LO insistent on obliterating OOo by
 continuing to use OOo registry entries and executable file names?
 
   If you install OO.o over LO - you will find it does the same thing;
 there is no malice implied on either side.

Actually OOo does not. I just tested OOo final 3.3.0 on WinXP and it
does not disturb LO. Right-clicking on an .odt and selecting 'Open With'
offers:

OpenOffice.org Writer (OOo 3.3.0 stable was installed after LO)
LibreOffice Writer (RC4/Stable is installed)
Microsoft Word

I suggest that you revisit the Change executable/sh names thread that
I started on the dev list.

 
 That SVG import still is incomplete and doesn't work properly. In fact
 SVG import is pretty much an ongoing joke (whether it be OOo-go-oo or LO).
 
   Well; it does something useful; we (and you) are welcome to make it
 better. In my view, something useful is almost always better than
 nothing, even if it is not perfect. Perhaps the most serious thing it
 does is showcase the poor performance of draw with lots of complex
 shapes - something that is intrinsic to draw, but of course not seen if
 you don't load any data into it ;-)

Perhaps 'ongoing joke' was a little harsh  I offer my apologies to
Bernhard Haumacher  any devs that have been working on it since then.
However the problem(s) have been ongoing for years (starting in 2005 +
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/SVG_Import_Filter).

My point was; promoting a broken feature as key reason to switch to LO
seems to me to be misguided. You know it's broke, I know it's broke, and
the multiple (years old) bug reports validate my opinion.  It really
doesn't matter if the issue is with Draw or the SVG extension/code, the
issue is/was the press release promoting a feature with significant
issues.

 
 Sorry, but IMO RC4/Final should have waited awhile until some of the
 more basic bugs were resolved.
 
   I am sorry you think so. But rest assured, you'll have plenty of time
 to fix and test bug fixes for 3.3.1 with us all. It is not as if the
 baseline we are starting from is bug-free perfection too.

Happy to help in any way that I can. BTW these might be worth a
look/relook as well:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openoffice.org/+bug/138141
[[upstream] export of openoffice draw to svg renders text invisable in
the svg file] - note my post of 2008

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32852
[[Linux] LibORC2: Impress video / `GLIBCXX_3.4.11' not found]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33050
[ [FILESAVE] LibO stops responding saving particular documents as .doc]
If you look at the history,
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_activity.cgi?id=33050
you'll find that was discovered in RC2.

There's more, but that's enough for this response.

I'm quite happy to help via troubleshooting/testing etc., but IMO taking
a fast track to release so soon after RC4 (which is the stable release)
is an indication that the releases are timed to distros/other events. I
think it better to slow things down and release 'when LO are ready'
rather than on buttons pushed by outside sources.




-- 
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 ***