Re: [board-discuss] LibreOffice no longer in Apple store ?
Thanks Sophie ! Le 13/01/2023 à 11:58, sophi a écrit : You don't see it currently because their is a special request for France that we have to comply with first (ANSSI certificate). Once this done, you'll be able to see it :) Christian provided a direct link, but we don't know if it will work either: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/libreoffice/id1630474372 The link will open in a browser just fine, but if I agree to open the link in the default Apple Store app, it displays an error message "App indisponible" "Cette app est actuellement indisponible dans votre pays ou région". So, currently still not visible/available for French-based Apple store. Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Report about numbers from Apple App Store
Hi Andreas, Perhaps I'm missing something, but why would the board have these figures, unless the private company distributing the product agreed to provide them, or was under some contractual obligation to do so? Just trying to understand exactly what it is you're trying to say, or prove, as a point? Personally speaking, I'm glad to be able to see how popular LibreOffice via the app store actually is. Alex Le 22 nov. 2022 à 20:16, à 20:16, Andreas Mantke a écrit: >Hi all, > >I asked the board more than three weeks ago, to provide to TDF members >the numbers from the Apple app store for the last years. But I and the >TDF members got no answer from the board about this numbers although I >reminded the board multiple times. > >Although I asked for at least an interim message the board was not able >to provide such a status report. It looks as if there are reasons why >the board is not willing or able to work on such a report and exchange >the data with the TDF members. Thus I make this way of interaction with >the TDF members public here. > >I look forward if the board see reason to change its behavior and >provide the requested report immediately (or at least an interim >message >with a detailed description of the current status of this task). > >Regards, >Andreas > >-- >## Free Software Advocate >## Plone add-on developer >## My blog: http://www.amantke.de/blog > > >-- >To unsubscribe e-mail to: >board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org >Problems? >https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ >Posting guidelines + more: >https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette >List archive: >https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ >Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Re: "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" & others on Mac AppStore
Thanks Paolo, will do. Best, Alex Le 8 sept. 2022 à 13:36, à 13:36, Paolo Vecchi a écrit: >Hi Alex, > >we have been looking at the issue in general both in terms of use of >"LibreOffice" and the promotion of LibreOffice based apps without links > >to the relevant licence and source code. > >We have already issued take down notices in the past so we will keep >the >situation monitored and act accordingly. > >Please feel free to forward to me links to other examples so that we >can >complete our list of action items. > >Ciao > >Paolo > > >On 08/09/2022 10:42, Alexander Thurgood wrote: >> Hmm, trawling the App Store shows that there are other similar >looking >> products that also do not reference the underlying FOSS source, code, > >> or licences. >> >> For example (with search string "libre office" : >> >> >> Ace Office:for word processing (Cynoble Technology Limited) - in app >> purchases >> >> GO Office 2021 (Xiaoqin Chen / HNBSoft Team) - 9,99 € >> >> DOC Mate:for MS Office (Cynoble Technology Limited) >> >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> >> Le 08/09/2022 à 10:15, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I just wanted to draw the Board's attention to the existence of the >>> products >>> >>> "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" >>> >>> and >>> >>> "Office PDF Suite - for Word, Spreadsheet, Slides & Adobe PDF Docs >>> Editor" >>> >>> >>> These products are being sold respectively for 14,99 € and 39,99 € >on >>> the AppStore, which in and of itself is not a surprise. >>> >>> More surprising to me is that the products look like LibreOffice >from >>> the screenshots that are available (or maybe OpenOffice.org, I >>> haven't done a detailed comparison as I don't have OOo anymore). >>> >>> Again, this wouldn't be a great surprise per se. >>> >>> However, nowhere do I see any recognition in the AppStore blurb >about >>> the product being derived from, or produced with, LibreOffice (or >>> OpenOffice.org) code, nor any mention of a licence, opensource or >>> otherwise. >>> >>> There is a copyright mention, but it glibly states "(C) Word >>> Documents Processor" >>> >>> The only reason I found the product in the first place is because I >>> put the keyword "ODF" in the AppStore search filter and this was one > >>> of the results. >>> >>> Does anyone have any further information about who is behind these >>> products, and if so, why they are failing to recognize the >>> contribution of the FOSS community behind it, the licence(s) under >>> which it is distributed, and seemingly, a link pointing to the >>> availability of the source code ? >>> >>> Is the Board going to do anything about it, and if so, what ? >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> >> > >-- >Paolo Vecchi - Member of the Board of Directors >The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE >Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts >Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
[board-discuss] Re: "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" & others on Mac AppStore
Hmm, trawling the App Store shows that there are other similar looking products that also do not reference the underlying FOSS source, code, or licences. For example (with search string "libre office" : Ace Office:for word processing (Cynoble Technology Limited) - in app purchases GO Office 2021 (Xiaoqin Chen / HNBSoft Team) - 9,99 € DOC Mate:for MS Office (Cynoble Technology Limited) Alex Le 08/09/2022 à 10:15, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : Hi everyone, I just wanted to draw the Board's attention to the existence of the products "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" and "Office PDF Suite - for Word, Spreadsheet, Slides & Adobe PDF Docs Editor" These products are being sold respectively for 14,99 € and 39,99 € on the AppStore, which in and of itself is not a surprise. More surprising to me is that the products look like LibreOffice from the screenshots that are available (or maybe OpenOffice.org, I haven't done a detailed comparison as I don't have OOo anymore). Again, this wouldn't be a great surprise per se. However, nowhere do I see any recognition in the AppStore blurb about the product being derived from, or produced with, LibreOffice (or OpenOffice.org) code, nor any mention of a licence, opensource or otherwise. There is a copyright mention, but it glibly states "(C) Word Documents Processor" The only reason I found the product in the first place is because I put the keyword "ODF" in the AppStore search filter and this was one of the results. Does anyone have any further information about who is behind these products, and if so, why they are failing to recognize the contribution of the FOSS community behind it, the licence(s) under which it is distributed, and seemingly, a link pointing to the availability of the source code ? Is the Board going to do anything about it, and if so, what ? Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] Documents Pro - Write & Edit on Mac AppStore
Hi everyone, I just wanted to draw the Board's attention to the existence of the products "Documents Pro - Write & Edit" and "Office PDF Suite - for Word, Spreadsheet, Slides & Adobe PDF Docs Editor" These products are being sold respectively for 14,99 € and 39,99 € on the AppStore, which in and of itself is not a surprise. More surprising to me is that the products look like LibreOffice from the screenshots that are available (or maybe OpenOffice.org, I haven't done a detailed comparison as I don't have OOo anymore). Again, this wouldn't be a great surprise per se. However, nowhere do I see any recognition in the AppStore blurb about the product being derived from, or produced with, LibreOffice (or OpenOffice.org) code, nor any mention of a licence, opensource or otherwise. There is a copyright mention, but it glibly states "(C) Word Documents Processor" The only reason I found the product in the first place is because I put the keyword "ODF" in the AppStore search filter and this was one of the results. Does anyone have any further information about who is behind these products, and if so, why they are failing to recognize the contribution of the FOSS community behind it, the licence(s) under which it is distributed, and seemingly, a link pointing to the availability of the source code ? Is the Board going to do anything about it, and if so, what ? Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision
Thanks Thorsten Alex Le mer. 13 juil. 2022 à 23:41, Thorsten Behrens a écrit : > Hi Alex, > > Alexander Thurgood wrote: > > Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner > > Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still > present in > > the amended version ? > > > That clause got added - it wasn't there before. > > > My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer, > > trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was > > felt necessary. > > > In the cited decision, that clause helped to strike down a contract as > invalid, that would have otherwise been harmful to that other > foundation. > > Best, Thorsten > > -- > Thorsten Behrens, Director, Member of the Board > The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, Germany > Rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Legal details: http://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint >
Re: [board-discuss] [DECISION] TDF to change statutes following a Federal Court of Justice decision
Hi Florian, Interesting decision by the BGH. Did I misread, or isn't the impugned clause (“Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”) still present in the amended version ? If so, how is that now different to the previous situation (other than what follows this sentence with regard to how legal representation by the Board is effected) ? My question is one purely of professional curiosity, as a lawyer, trying to understand the ratio decidendi as to why the change was felt necessary. Alex Le 13/07/2022 à 16:51, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hello, the following decision, which was taken in private on 2022-06-14, is now made public in accordance with our statutes. Participants to the vote were (in alphabetical order): Ayhan, Caolan, Cor, Emiliano, Kendy, Laszlo, Paolo, Thorsten Caolán McNamara wrote on 09.06.22 at 11:00: The German Federal Court of Justice decided (in judgement of 15 April 2021, case number III ZR 139/20, [1]) that the following clause in the statutes of a non-profit foundation effectively hinders third parties to contract to its detriment: “Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt.”(non-binding translation “The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the purpose of the Foundation.”). In order to protect The Document Foundation this clause therefore should be placed in the statutes [1] in § 8 section 1 which shall then read: “§ 8 Aufgaben des Vorstandes (1) Der Vorstand entscheidet in allen grundsätzlichen Angelegenheiten nach Maßgabe der Satzung in eigener Verantwortung und führt die laufenden Geschäfte der Stiftung. Der Vorstand hat die Stellung eines gesetzlichen Vertreters und vertritt die Stiftung gerichtlich und außergerichtlich. Der Vorstand ist in seiner Vertretungsmacht durch den Zweck der Stiftung beschränkt. Die Vertretung der Stiftung erfolgt durch zwei Vorstandsmitglieder, von denen eines der Vorsitzende oder der stellvertretende Vorsitzende sein muss. In dieser Weise kann für bestimmte Geschäfte Einzelbevollmächtigung erteilt werden. Im Innenverhältnis ist der stellvertretende Vorsitzende gehalten, nurbei Verhinderung des Vorsitzenden tätig zu werden.” Non-binding translation [3]: "§ 8 Tasks of the Board of Directors (1) The Board of Directors decides on all fundamental matters on its own authority in accordance with the Articles and conducts the ongoing business of the foundation. The Board of Directors has the status of a legal representative and represents the foundation in and out of court. The Board of Directors is limited in its power of representation by the purpose of the Foundation. The foundation shall be represented by two members of the Board of Directors, one of whom must be the chairman or vice-chairman. Individual empowerment may be granted for certain transactions in this way. The vice chairman will take action on internal matters only if the chairman is unavailable." In accordance with § 14 statutes the Board of Directors should make this change to the statutes as it does not affect the foundation’s goals and does not alter the original design of the foundation or facilitates the fulfilment of the foundation’s goals. The change of the statutes only becomes effective upon approval by the Foundation Supervisory Authority. This vote is proposed by all members of the legal subcommittee: Caolán, Emiliano, Paolo. This vote runs 72 hours from now on. [1] https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh=en=69a429d192b32e52aa408ebee0d476d6=119437 [2] German original https://www.documentfoundation.org/satzung.pdf [3] non-binding translation https://www.documentfoundation.org/statutes.pdf The Board of Directors at the time of voting consists of 7 seat holders (not including deputies). In order to be quorate, the vote needs to have 1/2 or more of the Board of Directors members, which gives 4. A total of 7 Board of Directors members have participated in the vote. The vote is quorate. A quorum could be reached with a simple majority of 4 votes. Result of vote: 5 approvals, 2 abstain, 0 disapprovals. Decision: The proposal has been accepted. One deputy supports the motion. Florian -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Open letter for revive LOOL, add your +1 if you agree
My ha'penneth below. Surely, the point of TDF is/was to foster community driven contributions by all ? If a languishing codebase was already there, and people are now prepared to update it and have a go at making something of it, shouldn't TDF be seen to be supporting such an initiative ? Reversing the decision to atticize LOOL would not be contrary to that aim, or am I missing something ? Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
It is neither a question of overblowing or "paranoia", (thanks for the gratuitous comment by the way, in tdf#147130), but I raised the issue as to where bugs for Collabora should be reported when it was first released via the AppStore and was told, multiple times, and no less by Michael Meeks himself, to report them in the LO BZ. Seemingly, and without any other form of policy discussion, that has now changed. Where is the due process in that decision ? This is the problem I'm pointing out. Secondarily, accusing people of abusing TDF resources in bug reports (whether they take it personally, or whether it is directed more generally at Collabora) doesn't help the situation IMHO. Alex Le 15/06/2022 à 09:56, Adolfo Jayme Barrientos a écrit : It is sad how you're willing to misinterpret and overblow it, Alex. Collabora Office is a downstream (i.e. derived) project of LibreOffice, and although it is based on the same codebase, it may have its own bugs. It is not fair for unpaid, volunteer triagers to spend time triaging their software's bugs in a bug tracking system pertaining to a different project, that is all. The NOTOURBUG status is meant to indicate that the bug simply needs to be moved to a more appropriate instance, as we do with e.g. snapcraft-related issues, which I triage on Launchpad.net. NOTOUTBUG does *not* mean that your bug is invalid. I am sorry because I am terse in my non-native languages, but really, there is no conspiracy behind it. I translate Collabora's software for free, but as you may note, they host their Weblate platform independently from TDF's -- their Jenkins is similarly separately hosted; their online help site is, too. For GOOD REASON. Adolfo -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
Hi Sophie, Thanks. I have no particular personal illusion that Collabora will fix any of the bugs I've reported against that product, especially if its AppStore offering is to be replaced by the TDF one (or perhaps they are going to compete with each other, I'm not entirely sure ?), so in the end, my objections may be moot. I look forward to following the discussion on this point in due course :-) For the record, as an example of one of the bug reports which does not yet appear to have had the corresponding comments removed: tdf#147337 Quote: "Please: Collabora bugs should be reported to a Collabora bug tracker. The Foundation’s resources should not be abused to report issues in commercial derivates." Being accused of abusing TDF resources after having offered my time since the very beginning of the LO project, and before with SO/OOo/AOO, is not the way to retain volunteers like myself, quite the contrary. In fact, had I been of a less phlegmatic disposition, I would have told you all where to go, in no uncertain terms. Alex Le 14/06/2022 à 21:58, sophi a écrit : Hi Alex, Le 14/06/2022 à 09:52, Alexander Thurgood a écrit : Hello to all, Might I suggest that a discussion be had, either by the Board, or the ESC, and a decision be made of public record, as to where bugs relating to Collabora Productivity are to be reported ? Agreed on the need to have a discussion on that. I have reported a number of bugs against Collabora Productivity in the LibreOffice bugzilla _*over several years*_ (basically since the product was first released via the AppStore). and thanks a lot for your continuous contributions to the project since so many years :) I see now that my reports are being closed as NOTOURBUG, and being told that I should report them to Collabora. Having been consistently told to report them on the LO BZ over these many years, this approach has come both as somewhat of a surprise, and a disappointment. Questions: 1) when was this change decided ? I see nothing of public record ? From what I know, nothing has been decided yet, as you said this is something that we should discuss 2) if the decision wass made to shift responsibility for these back to Collabora, would someone from that entity please indicate where the bugs should now be reported, or whether there is some mechanism in place to automatically transfer the bugs to a corresponding Collabora instance like we did when we moved from Apache BZ ? We have to give time to time (F. Mitterrand for those who are not French ;) I have the distinct and unpleasant impression that the current tensions within the Board have led to an undocumented decision to purge all traces of Collabora bugs from the LO BZ instance without regard for the people who have actually tried to help improve the product by reporting those bugs. Your impression is not the right one. There are no decisions yet on this process. This leads to the unfortunate situation where both the member closing your bugs and you are right or wrong. I would have appreciated there being some kind of public decision making process in this regard, with a means for currently reported bugs to be automatically transferred. For sure there will be and you pointed a very valuable lack of process. Closing them as NOTOURBUG without any due process just smacks of petty revenge actions, and does not bode well for the future wellbeing of the project IMO. In the community there are different understandings and different behaviors. Fortunately we are able to follow-up on almost all of them. But I'm sure the closing of your bugs have nothing to do with a hidden agenda or something like that. Once the settings of the app stores will be done, there will be a lot to decide and discuss and I'm sure (and will work for :) it will happen in a sane way. On your underlying point about the tensions in the board, there are and we are all well aware of them, as is the board. Their has been a two, almost three years break in relations because of the pandemic. This is not easy to work remotely, but it has been even worse for us distributed around the globe. So bear with all of them, with all of us and please, continue to share all your concerns, this is how we will manage to solve problems and grow as a project. Cheers Sophie -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
Hi Jan, For example : tdf#147337 The others (there were at least 2 other instances, for example tdf#147130), all seem to have had similar comments deleted in the interim. Alex Le 14/06/2022 à 19:42, Jan Holesovsky a écrit : Hi Alex, Alexander Thurgood píše v Út 14. 06. 2022 v 09:52 +0200: I have reported a number of bugs against Collabora Productivity in the LibreOffice bugzilla over several years (basically since the product was first released via the AppStore). I see now that my reports are being closed as NOTOURBUG, and being told that I should report them to Collabora. I have no idea what is going on, can you please point me to some bugs where this is happening? Thank you in advance! All the best, Kendy -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[board-discuss] Collabora Productivity from AppStore - bug reports
Hello to all, Might I suggest that a discussion be had, either by the Board, or the ESC, and a decision be made of public record, as to where bugs relating to Collabora Productivity are to be reported ? I have reported a number of bugs against Collabora Productivity in the LibreOffice bugzilla _*over several years*_ (basically since the product was first released via the AppStore). I see now that my reports are being closed as NOTOURBUG, and being told that I should report them to Collabora. Having been consistently told to report them on the LO BZ over these many years, this approach has come both as somewhat of a surprise, and a disappointment. Questions: 1) when was this change decided ? I see nothing of public record ? 2) if the decision wass made to shift responsibility for these back to Collabora, would someone from that entity please indicate where the bugs should now be reported, or whether there is some mechanism in place to automatically transfer the bugs to a corresponding Collabora instance like we did when we moved from Apache BZ ? I have the distinct and unpleasant impression that the current tensions within the Board have led to an undocumented decision to purge all traces of Collabora bugs from the LO BZ instance without regard for the people who have actually tried to help improve the product by reporting those bugs. I would have appreciated there being some kind of public decision making process in this regard, with a means for currently reported bugs to be automatically transferred. Closing them as NOTOURBUG without any due process just smacks of petty revenge actions, and does not bode well for the future wellbeing of the project IMO. Thanks, Alex
[board-discuss] Re: New draft of the proposal for in-house developers
Hi all, See my comments inline under Julien's. Le 25/03/2022 à 09:18, Julien Nabet a écrit : Firebird is not the only pb, charts aren't displayed anymore in reports and the whole reports part is dependent on old Java external components. Yes, the issue of charts in reports no longer being displayed is now a very old regression bug. There are also address books pbs: - Mac one (eg : leaks but not only this, Alex may tell more about this I suppose) At least now, a connection to macAB is possible without crashing in the TDF-provided version - haven't tried Collabora's versions yet. There are a couple of other Mac-specific issues (tdf#50626, tdf#64641) with the macOS addressbook. - Thunderbird one can't be used anymore after Mork->Sqlite migration. Yes, that's an issue for everyone - note that system support for Sqlite3 on macOS is included by default in the system, but that doesn't help much if it can't be made to talk to LO over the SDB bridge. This ties in to a lack of built-in support for SQLite in LO in general. It is likely that any such integration would be perceived by users as a very welcome addition (and not just for Moz addressbook support), but my understanding is that this would not be trivial to implement, as it would be basically be like redoing all of the work for Firebird over again, but this time for SQLite. Given that we are already in a mess with Firebird, having a 2nd mess with incomplete SQLite support might not be the best allocation of resources. Much as I hate to say it, _*if*_ resources were to be allocated to Base development, I would much prefer : - fixing old regressions, e.g. the chart bug in the report builder; - making embedded Firebird the functional equivalent of embedded hsqldb - currently, it is like some awkward reject, shivering in the cold and dark - lots of incremental improvements to be made here; - migrating the Java report generator code to C++ - there used to be a native report writer, and it got killed off in favour of Java - however, this would not be a small endeavour. Of course, if the general thinking in the "dev community" is that database front end support is a dead duck, then it seems unlikely that even TDF would engage resources in it. Personally, I would find that incredibly sad, and it would take away my raison d'être for using LO, but I'm not going to be King Canute either. Alex
Re: [board-discuss] Enable TDF to contribute more code to LibreOffice with in-house developers to address our donors specific needs
Hi all, I'd just like to comment on the exchange below, from my perspective: Le 10/02/2022 à 15:27, Italo Vignoli a écrit : Then there is a number of donors who ask to stop the recurring donation. Some of them provide a reason, which in some cases is that he wanted to donate once and not on a recurring basis, in some cases lack of money, and in some other because they don't use the software anymore (no bug or other technical reason provided). A small number of donors block donations because the software doesn't fit their needs or is too difficult to use (again, without providing any technical reason or a bug). You should always consider the fact that only a very small number of users is capable of spotting bugs, as for them the software always works as intended. It took me several years to get a marginal understanding of bugs, and I have been working in technology environments since 1982. The majority of users is technically dumb, including people who are supposed to be competent, and this is just a fact. Also, in case it is a concrete problem that stops them donating any longer, please do you have an opportunity to file bugzilla tickets for such cases? Since 2013, not a single user has related stopping donations with bugs, while some donors have related their donation to solving bugs. Were I a recurring business donor, I would do this, in the event I wanted to stop donating and a particular bug or bugs were preventing me from using LibreOffice in my business. Mind you, to be honest, even then, I personally wouldn't have much expectation of the situation changing. One of the reasons I'm not a recurring donor is because I have to ask myself why, as the manager of a small business, I would do that (I do use the "paid" versions from the Apple Store commercial entity though). Do I feel the need for some kind of ROI ? I would argue that, yes, I do. After all, if I am prepared to pay a subscription to a business such as Microsoft for its online product offering, or take out a Google Workspace subscription, then for the amount I pay out for the small number of users in the business, I would argue that contributing a similar monthly amount to the LibreOffice project entitles me to something other than a free download for my OS of choice. This is where the rationale of the well-wishing world of an OSS software foundation and its relation to small business users and potential donors hits the rails of reality hard. Of course, I could give out of the kindness of my heart, and have done in the very distant past - but in business, and especially small business, my outgoings are not ruled by my heart, they are ruled by my bottom line. I would then argue that if I perceived that any donation I might make might actually go toward fixing one of the bugs that affects me, I could see a stronger business case for repeat donations. Obviously, if a bug I reported 10 years ago is still laying around untouched, I might come to the realisation that no one is ever going to fix it and stop donating as a result. Currently, I do not see that. It certainly isn't the case with the commercial entity, whose own business criteria and priorities are clearly not the same as mine. Fair enough, as a business we all have to make money, but then an inevitable decision will be taken to stop using the commercial entity's offering, and possibly, even probably, stop using LibreOffice altogether. I also know we've had the discussion about bug bounties before and gone round and round - without result. I wish there was some alternative that would appeal to people in a situation like the one I find myself in. Currently, none of the ways of financially contributing are appealing, save as a charitable benefactor with no expectations whatsoever. As an individual person, I might well do that - as a business with other more pressing demands on my pocket, not so much. I'm not even sure that there is a solution to the above. Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Thanks Ilmari ! I seem to have missed that ! Will need to try it out again, and apologies for my erroneous statement in that case. Alex Le 13/01/2022 à 21:08, Ilmari Lauhakangas a écrit : On 13.1.2022 21.56, Michael Meeks wrote: On 13/01/2022 12:35, Alexander Thurgood wrote: Endian-ness for embedded Firebird seems to be the elephant in the room here. ODB files made on MacOS can not easily be shared with other OSes/arch. Oh - wow, I didn't know that. Wow - that is awful. That crushed my hopes for a good Firebird based future. Alex: seems the problem existed before Aug 2016, but not anymore. See https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72987#c14 and comment 17 which refer to https://git.libreoffice.org/core/commit/0cc1ddf2d8d6bc7df74fdd8f8f97381df681177d Quoting from Lionel's comment 17: 'The problem was fixed by saving (within the odb zip structure) firebird data in an endianess-independent format, called the "backup" format, in a file with extension ".fbk".' Ilmari -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi Michael, Thanks for jumping in on this thread, and I appreciate you having taken the time to address my points. Comments inline : Le 12/01/2022 à 21:45, Michael Meeks a écrit : Unfortunately - this tends to dis-aggregate the funding again - so we end up either with too little money on each of many features, or we re-focus back onto the most 'popular' feature / fix work which have significant interest. Probably that doesn't help here. This is far from unique to LibreOffice - large commercial software suffers from this too - as well as having a much higher transaction cost around getting involved & fixing the things you care about. Wander into an under-loved part of Microsoft Office and you will find plenty of rough edges. It is hard to see a way of avoiding that. Oh I quite agree, squaring the circle of financing development/bug fixing and matching users' expectations is a generally thankless task for any organisation. On Mac, there are many intersecting issues here, I'm not fully up-to-date, but we have to use the MPLv2 / Category-b subset for the app-store binaries (I was re-reading their tweaked app-store rules today as it happens). I imagine that Mac sandboxing may cause some headaches, and prolly there are bigger issue around ODBC drivers on Mac: https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/671258 It is possible to package an entire JVM - and bundle that - along with all of the related security issues, download size etc. but this creates a large amount of ongoing busy-work that takes resource from other things. Also IIRC the ARM64 / M1 / JVM story is/was far from beautiful. Apple seem to have a proven ability to churn their platform API and even architecture wise rather more quickly than is helpful for us cf. the PPC version. Oh, yes, I still remember the pain involved in transitioning from PPC to Intel. Be that as it may, the only way for my business activity to access the full range of database options is to use the TDF LibreOffice version, and even that is beginning to fail in a number of areas. Hopefully it still works to use the TDF version - and I see very little chance that Base will be 'atticised' in the near future - or that this was even in the scope of this proposal, but perhaps it is wise to discuss that possibility. At least for x86_64, and the ARM version seems almost functional up to the same level , the TDF versions mostly do what we need, even with Java on Arm (Oracle JDK 17). The downside for the commercial offerings then is why would I continue to keep subscribing to the AppStore versions (and contributing financially, however little that might be), if I have to have multiple different versions of what is perceived as the "same" software in order to get work done ? Lest there be some misunderstanding, I also wasn't touting that Base be atticised, far from it, that would be counter-productive for me in particular, my concerns were levelled more at the perceived (by me) risk that apathy, or lack of foresight at the Board level, or whichever circumstances, might lead to the commercially branded offerings of LO in the long run being the only ones available via the AppStore, or indeed anywhere. Of course, discussing strategic orientation of the project is always useful, irrespective of the modules that might be affected. My take from all of this is that I foresee the macOS LibreOffice product becoming solely distributed by one entity in the long term I think that is very unlikely; at least, unless that entity is TDF. Well, at least the above would imply that someone will carry on holding the torch, which is a good thing ! I have been told variously and rather glibly in the past that an SLA would solve the problem - the fact is that the costs and provision of such a SLA from a vendor are neither transparent upfront, nor realistic for a small business with 5 seats. I'm not going to advertise Collabora's Engineering Support packs here, but they have fixed-price per root-cause fixes. That the price reflects the costs & risk there is an unfortunate commercial reality. I understand that, and don't have an issue with the principle at all. As you say, the cost reflects the commercial reality, and that reality doesn't really coincide with small business expenditure, unless they mutualise in some way (which kind of presupposes that they actually know each other, have the same desires, and are prepared to do something about it). So - the board in the past funded some work to try to get Firebird into a state where it could be used as an HSQLDB replacement - which can be shipped on Mac. I think that can provide an alternative today, and quite probably we should put more effort into making it work nicely on Mac (does it?). However migrating HSQLDB to Firebird is far from trivial not least (IIRC) because we have a rather inflexible yacc SQL parser
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi Paolo, Answers/comments/response inline : Le 12/01/2022 à 14:56, Paolo Vecchi a écrit : *1) Support offering from commercial entities* There isn't much we can do in this area as each company chooses its own business model. Offering a SLA to fix a bug could mean spending a day in fixing and testing the patch as it may mean weeks of development and testing so it isn't that easy to price it for SMEs. Maybe one day, when they'll have enough subscribers to their services, they will be to offer different SLA to SMEs but that's entirely up to them. Just to add that I'm not at all entirely convinced that it is the Board's duty to oversee this part - of course, what a commercial entity decides to offer in terms of business support is entirely up to them - suffice it to say that the economics of the vendor support field clearly seem oriented to large scale deployment. Unfortunately, this completely ignores the fact that in many countries in Europe at least (I can't speak for others), the industrial tissue is made up majoritarily of small businesses or very small businesses, i.e. units with between 1 to 10, or 10 to 30 or so employees, artisans and craftspeople. I don't see any commercial offerings within the current commercial vendor community surrounding the LO project which appear to target that size of business. I can fully understand and appreciate why that might be - client expectations exceeding the ROI of the commercial vendor for the time and effort required to fix X,Y, or Z bug specific to that small business' needs. It is indeed a shame that there are no such offerings presently, but those (V)SMEs still require something, otherwise they may as well just stick to the other existing alternative commercial solutions around, including the proprietary ones. The rationale about having a drive to recruit commercial development/support vendors to the project was that they are/were necessary to enable the LO community and project as a whole to survive. I firmly believe that they still are, but they are nonetheless failing to fill/meet the needs for those small businesses. Perhaps as you say, one day, they will be in a position to offer SLAs adapted to those small enterprises, but 10 years down the line, that hasn't yet materialized, and it seems unlikely to do so IMHO given the current direction that the majority of development efforts from these vendors appears to be taking, i.e. online service offerings as opposed to monolithic product installations. Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure that this is the Board's job to ensure business offerings that meet substantially every business user's needs, but I do feel it worthwhile for the Board to keep an objective eye on where things are going in relation to this point. *2) Market differentiation Community/Commercial offering* In your last email you seem to say that you spotted difference in features between the version you used. Apart from the Java bundling issue (thanks for pointing to a potential solution and to Andras for the explanation) is there anything else that you think we should look at? ODBC connectivity - granted, there is some debate around whether support should be continued at all for ODBC connections, but that would extend to other OSes MySQL connector connectivity Postgresql connector connectivity All 3 of these are either absent (mariadb/postgres) from LibreOffice Vanilla and Collabora Productivity, or present, but broken (ODBC connectivity). To create more clarity I think we should to start building on the internal skills we already have to ensure we can deliver LibreOffice "by TDF" to our community in the app stores regardless of the choices commercial entities may want to make. That would be a possibility, indeed. Talks have been in progress for a while so if you'd like to influence the process please let us know what you think. Another thought is related to the eventual cost of the app on the app stores. TDF already fulfils its duty by making LibreOffice available for free from our web site. The app store is a very convenient way for users to install LibreOffice but the whole process adds extra costs and issues as rules and procedures can change often. Would it be OK for the community to exchange convenience for a TBD monetary contribution, made from the app store and going directly to TDF, which would be equivalent to a donation? Personally, I wouldn't have an issue with this, but it comes with downsides: - the vendor offerings tend to be more conservative in their changes, which is good for the overall stability of the product, whereas some of the initial releases of any new TDF LO version contain catastrophic bugs ; - if a TDF LO version is released with a monetary contribution through an application store, TDF should be wary of raising people's expectations about the kind of product being delivered, and be very clear on the
Re: [board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi Andras, LibreOffice from the AppStore is branded Vanilla in the AppStore, but displays as "Community" (e.g. 7.2.4.1 LibreOffice Community). It is not identical to the "Community" version available from TDF. Java functionality is but one part (an important one, but one part nonetheless) of Base functionality. According to this: https://pretagteam.com/question/how-to-bundle-a-java-application-to-a-mac-os-x-app-bundle it would seem that it is indeed possible to include all of the required ressources (i.e. bundling a JRE/JDK) into a product acceptable for inclusion and distribution via the AppStore. Not doing so would then be a decision based on effort/reward for the entity building and distributing the product. Again, which I can understand. However, the Java functionality is but one of the issues. For example, current Collabora releases (whether Vanilla or Productivity) do not include postgresql or mariadb connectors - this is feature deprecation creep, for whatever reason. The reason I raised this topic is for there to be a discussion on how the Board resolves that issue - i.e. the difference in products which appear under similarly confusing names via different outlets, when businesses in particular, are being pushed, by the LO download page itself, towards a product with reduced feature functionality, under the pretext that the business user will help the community at large and obtain some kind of benefit from supporting the business entity. My experience as a business case user shows there to be a mismatch between expectation and reality. If nothing is done, I fear that that gap will only widen. That is the point I feel needs addressing. Alex Le 12/01/2022 à 11:52, Andras Timar a écrit : Hi, On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 10:09 AM Alexander Thurgood wrote: It seems increasingly obvious that the provider of these commercial versions is not interested in maintaining database functionality and the supporting Java functionality that accompanies the Base module. The reasons for this may be perfectly valid commercially-focussed decisions, and not just linked to the specifics of the AppStore rules. I don't think it's right. As far as I'm concerned, LibreOffice Vanilla is built from the LibreOffice source without any change (hence the name Vanilla). https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ says: 2.4.5 Apps distributed via the Mac App Store have some additional requirements to keep in mind: ... (viii) Apps should run on the currently shipping OS and may not use deprecated or optionally installed technologies (e.g. Java) So as far as I'm concerned, it is not possible to include Java based HSQLDB in LibreOffice Vanilla. Omission of Java is a technical limitation, not a commercially focused decision. Regards, Andras Timar
[board-discuss] Commercial entity vs community development and distribution
Hi *, Sophie suggested that I might want to raise what I perceive as an issue here on this list, that is connected, but not identical, to the issue relating to the Attic question, and the questions around the sidelining of features/functionality in commercially developed and distributed versions of LibreOffice / X entity branded products (X being the commercial entity). As it is not directly related to the Attic question, I have started a new topic. I am a business user of the LibreOffice software product, and for those who know me, or of me, I have been a long time community volunteer active in QA, and previously to that in the documentation projects. My focus within these projects has pretty much always been related to Base, and in line with my business activity, pretty much related to using LibreOffice on macOS. My business is a small one, 4 to 5 machines, and is based essentially on various macOS machines (a combination of Mac minis and Macbook Pro devices). I try, to the extent possible, to use LibreOffice versions made available through the AppStore. On the one hand, it is suggested, on the LibreOffice download web page, to support the business solution providers if we use LibreOffice in a professional or commercial capacity. I believe that my business does this by using the versions provided via the AppStore. Nonetheless, as a paying business of these versions, I am left in a quandary. My business relies on daily use of database interactions, including the use of queries, forms, and to a lesser extent, reports. The business implements a number of different database solutions, ranging from mysql/mariadb/postgres server backends and/or embedded hsqldb (and hopefully when the functionality is finally of an equivalent scope, embedded Firebird). It seems increasingly obvious that the provider of these commercial versions is not interested in maintaining database functionality and the supporting Java functionality that accompanies the Base module. The reasons for this may be perfectly valid commercially-focussed decisions, and not just linked to the specifics of the AppStore rules. Be that as it may, the only way for my business activity to access the full range of database options is to use the TDF LibreOffice version, and even that is beginning to fail in a number of areas. My take from all of this is that I foresee the macOS LibreOffice product becoming solely distributed by one entity in the long term, due to inaction, or passiveness from the Board to allow things to continue as they are. The current commercial entity, due to the business decisions it makes with regard to its own internal code development/maintenance strategy, then gets to choose which functions are maintained and which are deprecated. I have been told variously and rather glibly in the past that an SLA would solve the problem - the fact is that the costs and provision of such a SLA from a vendor are neither transparent upfront, nor realistic for a small business with 5 seats. I also rather doubt that it would be satisfactory for the commercial entity as well. From a business perspective, I may as well just switch to using Office365 or GoogleWorkplace at ca. 50EUR/month for the same 5 seats, and accept the limitations, and/or paying optional extra features that might be necessary to have an equivalent setup. The question I have then for the Board is this : - what is the Board going to do to address the issue of abandonment of features in commercially provided/branded versions of LibreOffice ? If the attic solution is adopted for such abandoned features, does this mean that the TDF LO version for macOS would one day be put into that attic ? My current concern is that it might, or, as appears to be the case, it will be built off the commercial entity's build environment (this ties back to the questions around the LOOL project) and released with that reduced feature set. Clearly, one can't force any commercial entity to do anything with regard to source code that is initially under an open source licence That is, after all, the whole point of open source code. However, the future of the project will be put in jeopardy if the commercial developments take over as the main release channel for any given arch/OS. That is the concern I would like to see addressed. Thank you for listening to me, and apologies in advance if I may have ruffled a few feathers. Alex Thurgood -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1
Le 11/03/2016 18:51, Larry Gusaas a écrit : Dear Mr. Gussas, > That is not a fix but a workaround. Fix it. > No doubt if I had the skills to do so, I might, but I'm afraid my poor brain can only cope with installing a JDK and occasionally offering some of my time to try and answer the questions of people like yourself. Rudeness of the kind to which you have subjected me is quite unappealing nonetheless. Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Java still broke on LibreOffice 5.1.1
Le 11/03/2016 01:47, Larry Gusaas a écrit : > LibreOffice 5.1.1 on Macs still doesn't recognize Java Runtime > Environment (JRE 1.8.0_73 & OS X ver.10.11.3) > > You need to fix this bug. Can't use database without JRE. > Cf. bug 96163 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96163 Alex -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Replace validate in XML Filter dialog with Open in Editor
Le 24/10/11 23:41, Peter Jentsch a écrit : Hi Peter, So I'd like to hear your opinions on that: is anyone using the validation button or at least theoretically sees some practical value to it, compared to offering to open the resulting XML in your favourite editor? The problem I see with that approach is that : - the favourite editor doesn't necessarily provide validation either, or maybe I'm just using the wrong ones ;-) - it would become dependent on the implementation specifics of the editor, but maybe people can live with that, after all, editing XML is not everyone's cup of tea anyway !! My interest in something that just works is both personal and professional. In a professional capacity, I have to draft patent applications for online filing according to a internationally agreed standard : http://www.wipo.int/standards/en/xml_material/st36/ At present, one of the organisations I work with, the EPO, makes available an XML-Form based application that enables users to create an patent application request, include content as part of the application by importing either XML files or via a Word document (which uses VBA macros to convert the structure of the Word document into valid XML), and then validate the whole thing against the relevant DTDs. The user in essence needs to know nothing about XML processing and validation, it is all transparently achieved for him/her. I was hoping to find some way to do this with LibO, and the XSLT export feature looked like a potential candidate to me. I have also started looking at the potential use of XForms from within LibO to produce a valid XML document that would allow me to either create a valid XML document for processing with the online filing software, or simply some valid XML file that I could import into the PatXML application, without the need of having to go through Word. I had hoped that the existing XSLT/XSD export/validation functionality within LibO could be used to that effect, but it would appear from your initial comment that this might actually be beyond LibO's current capabilities, hence the idea to farm this out to an external editor. For my given situation, this validation could of course be carried out by PatXML, but unfortunately this is a Windows only solution, and I was hoping to be able to implement a platform independent one, hence the consideration of the LibO internal validation route. I admit that this is probably a niche case, but nonetheless remains important for me. Unfortunately, I can not at present say whether the functionality within LibO would actually work for the scenario I am considering, so my comments may be completely moot. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Lotus Wordpro specifications? Other format specs?
Le 14/09/11 17:18, Caolán McNamara a écrit : Hi all, Symphony might have one, but the source for that isn't available. There was an announcement a number of months ago that it would be, but no indication of a timeline as far as I understand. I seem to recall that there was a LWP filter in Symphony v1, but IBM pulled it out with the release of current V3 and stated (at the time of release) that they didn't have any plans to support it any more, which upset a fair number of SmartSuite users. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, Alex, how does that sound from a legal point of view? Is it strong enough? Usage is explained in our trademark policy. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 23/08/11 10:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Second thoughts, subject to international copyright laws. Uses are explained our trademark policy. better still : Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 23/08/11 15:25, Simon Phipps a écrit : Hi Simon, better still : Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy. I agree that's more precise English. I am a little concerned it's uncommon usage that those with English as a second language might consider difficult, and thus I prefer your earlier suggestion: Usage is explained in our trademark policy. No big issue though, just a preference. I'd welcome your comment. Not wishing to get into a battle on semantics, my personal preference is still the second suggestion, but I would agree with you that non-native English speakers might find the less archaic wording of my first suggestion easier to grasp from the outset. Ultimately, choose whatever everyone feels comfortable with. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
[tdf-discuss] Re: A failed query to ODBC data source
Le 17/08/11 16:30, Terrence Enger a écrit : Hi Terry, The problem is the message The data content could not be loaded. when I include a particular field from a particular table in the select list of a query. The curious specificity is that I can with success include char() of that field in the select list, and I can include the field in the where clause or the order-by clause. If I create another table and from the same SQL DDL and DML statements, LibreOffice has no problem. On the other hand, the problem is again evident with a table which I create with (please pardon jargon specific to the IBM i) CRTDUPOBJ. Is your field perchance being flagged as an OBJECT ? As I recall, neither OOo nor LibreOffice could handle ODBC Objects (e.g. BLOB, IMAGE fields and other OBJECT type fields) via the SDBC-ODBC bridge. Using string functions like char() might well work because the type would be recast into one that the SDBC-ODBC bridge could handle. However, I do remember there previously being problems with DB2 ODBC drivers. It hurts to give up on a problem, but there is the possiblity spending a lot of effort with the only result being a more specific failure message, along the lines of You gotta upgrade your remote server to a supported version of the O/S or Please lobby IBM to fix their ODBC driver. Have you searched to see if anything is in the old OOo dba mailing list archives on this topic ? I suppose you could always try canvassing someone from IBM over at the Apache-OOo project, but they might just tell you to use the JDBC driver instead. I don't think there are many db2 users on this list, or even on the users list. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: A failed query to ODBC data source
Le 17/08/11 16:30, Terrence Enger a écrit : Hi Terry, It hurts to give up on a problem, but there is the possiblity spending a lot of effort with the only result being a more specific failure message, along the lines of You gotta upgrade your remote server to a supported version of the O/S or Please lobby IBM to fix their ODBC driver. I had a trawl in my old dba messages, and found a reference to a problem where OOo did not respect the Concurrency and SCROLL_SENSITIVITY settings that were being passed by the driver from the DB server connection. Perhaps this is where your problem lies ? http://www.mail-archive.com/dba-cvs@openoffice.org/msg00858.html Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: A failed query to ODBC data source
Le 17/08/11 16:30, Terrence Enger a écrit : Possibly a wild goose chase, but I also found this : http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/ResultSetType-Settings-in-Openoffice-Base-td2783193.html Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 31/07/11 16:53, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, hmmm... do I get it right that not mentioning any trademark protection is better than mentioning that a mark is protected, but not naming the registrant? The easiest way around such a situation in the present state of...flux, would be to indicate that : LibreOffice is a registered trademark of its corresponding registered owner or is in actual use as a trademark in one or more countries. In this way, you avoid having to worry about whether or not you have designated the rightful owner, but by the same token have recognised that the trademark rights exist. That's not to say that such an all inclusive reference might not bump against on some local legislative or regulatory requirement somewhere in the world, but it is a fairly comprehensive start :-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 31/07/11 10:21, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, legally, the German association Freies Office Deutschland e.V. is the current trademark holder, as TDF doesn't exist as legal entity yet. Ideally then, reference should be made to the FOD Verein and not to TDF. Not mentioning the name of the rights holder at all opens the person who publicises such a mark on their product to allegations of fraud, trademark infringement, and false assertion of rights (jurisdiction dependent as always of course), including via third parties (i.e. it doesn't require TDF to take positive action). Trademark law can be a real pain at times :-)). In general, this is relatively low risk stuff. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
[steering-discuss] Re: trademark use request
Le 30/07/11 18:39, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian I received a trademark use request from an extension vendor. For confidentiality reasons (the product has not yet been launched), I'll remove the name, but the request is as follows: Back of the product box: LibreOffice is a registered trademark of The Document Foundation. Assuming that the TM _is_ actually registered in the name of TDF, then yes, this is OK. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ 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
[tdf-discuss] Re: disclaimer for extension website
Le 24/07/11 00:13, Dennis E. Hamilton a écrit : Hi Dennis, Some sites have a link for DMCA notices, often at the bottom of the page. I see them from time to time, but don't know where I last saw one. I will check some obvious candidates: Many of the aggregator sites for what turn out to be illegally downloadable films, videos, TV series, etc have such DMCA compliance notice whereby a link is provided with an e-mail address and a specific protocol to engage in for any copyright infringement complaints. I came across one the other day : http://watchseries.eu/dmca Whether this actually removes the liability for that site with regard to the DMCA would be a question for a US copyright attorney, but it gives the general idea. Unfortunately in Europe, and despite, or possibly because of, the InfoSoc Directive (which allowed for a great deal of latitude in national law implementation), many situations are still being hammered out in various court cases, including in some jurisdictions, internet linking to copyrighted material, so this is somewhat of a moving target making a one size fits all takedown notice statement difficult to achieve. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 09/07/11 23:32, Simon Phipps a écrit : As someone who also has worked in this field for the best part of a decade, and given the advice Alex has already provided appears extreme, I would suggest also seeking counsel from another specialist if TDF wishes to pursue this path, perhaps from SFLC. An excellent suggestion. Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 09/07/11 23:26, Bernhard Dippold a écrit : Hi all, Someone suggested I sling in some caselaw or other references on whether copyright protection is available for UIs : US Just one caselaw review : http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/crind.htm Europe In European Union Court of Justice Case C-393/09 : http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2011/03/24/protection-of-guis-graphical-user-interfaces-some-comments-about-the-ecj-%E2%80%98s-preliminary-ruling-in-bsa-v-ministervo-kultury/ involving the BSA against the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic relating tp television broadcasting of user interface. What the latter ruling states is that copyright is not available under the Computer Program Copyright Directive 91/250/EEC, as that is intended to protect code per se. However, copyright is available for UIs under the more general Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC, providing that they meet the criteria for awarding copyright, i.e. originality, author's own work, etc. So to all those naysayers who think that no-one sues anyone else over UI elements - wake up, and take stock. Am I paranoid ? No, but people do get sued. Do I represent the BSA ? No, but I know peers that do, and believe me, love it or hate it, the BSA do sue people. Please, by all means, get an opinion, hell, get several opinions, most likely they will all be as different as there are different states in the world. Alex -- 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
[steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Le 06/07/11 11:48, Tom Davies a écrit : Everyone : To me, the point has more to do with SC communication. Once again, a topic has raised its head that I considered dealt with, and now it is back on the table. Although not a member of the SC, the question of the legality of screenshot usage and associated platforms for making them has become important enough IMO for a decision to be clearly stated by the SC, so I am submitting this question as a topic for discussion to you all. If there is already a decision somewhere in the archives, or on the wiki, could someone from the SC please point us to it ? If not, please consider this question for discussion as quickly as possible and issue a statement. Alex -- 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
[tdf-discuss] Re: Poll Daily-Builds usage - we need your experience
Le 04/07/11 17:23, Rainer Bielefeld a écrit : 1 My OS is: MAC 2 Update Info: Useful 3 I test:frequently 4 I test for: Scripting, Extensions, Base module 5 My suggestion: it would be nice to be able to get testtool tests to run again Alex Thurgood -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: When can we have a API to send Emails ?
Le 24/06/11 13:46, Caolán McNamara a écrit : Hi Caolàn, On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 14:18 +0200, Fernand Vanrie wrote: So please can someone make this small change in the API You *might* get some change out of the com.sun.star.mail.MailMessage service which implements XMailMessage which has a (horribly-complex) route to set the body of the email. Do you mean, this bit of MailMessage.hpp : const ::com::sun::star::uno::Reference ::com::sun::star::datatransfer::XTransferable xBody where it looks like the body has to be a recognised DataFlavor : http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/datatransfer/DataFlavor.html and which DataFlavor requires a structure something akin to what is found through drag and drop or copying to the clipboard - , nice, looks...mind-boggling :-)) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: When can we have a API to send Emails ?
Le 22/06/11 14:18, Fernand Vanrie a écrit : Hi Fernand, For some reasons the developpers off the OO-API has decided to not allow sending Emails using there API imho the mechanism is in place Well, one can already find : const rtl::OUString BODY(RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM(--body)); in smplmailclient.cxx But this doesn't seem to be used anywhere else. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: When can we have a API to send Emails ?
Le 23/06/11 15:44, Fernand Vanrie a écrit : Hi Fernand, Thanks for yoyr reply, but how do we acces this with the API ? Greetz From my reading of the bits in the code I could find, it is not implemented. Now that I think of it, I seem to recall that this all came from the StarOffice dektop days and the Calendar Scheduler, where e-mails could be sent. From what I recall, there was some kind of scaremongering about being able to spam people using StarOffice with potentially dangerous payloads (macros and whatnot), so the mail functionality got pulled / reduced. It was also all developed from the MAPI-like interface, but like I said, distant memories that may or may not be more or less accurate. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 17/06/11 08:36, Marc-André Laverdière a écrit : Is there _any_ database that people use that doesn't have a JDBC driver at this point? Maybe we can keep our lives simple by only enabling JDBC drivers? Other than the fact that it would make LibreOffice even more dependent on Java technologies, which is precisely the opposite direction in which current evolution of the product is planned, using JDBC within LibreOffice really sucks when it comes to performance for anything more than a few thousand tuples, not to mention the various quirks when Java runtime or JDK versions are changed, either by the user, or the OS supplier / distributor. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 12/06/11 03:04, Uwe Altmann a écrit : Hi Uwe, Adabas was bundeled only with StarOffice (never with OOo) - it was one of the Add-Ons Star Office had (besides more Gallery entries, templates and better spell checking then OOo) in former times. In former times refers to OOo 1.* when OOo has no official (=Sun/Star Office) Version for Macs; so Adabas connection/driver never had a need for Mac support by Sun. That would explain why I had it for several years, since I decided to pay for StarOffice through most of its commercial versions, even after OOo had been launched. At the time I wasn't on the Mac platform though. Meanwhile Adabas is a legacy product. I wonder if anyone uses it in a productive environment. Surely not on a Mac. As has been said - whoever need this can stick on an older OOo Version. I think François has already proposed a patch in master on the developer list for the config scripts to no longer build the Adabas driver component module. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 10/06/11 18:46, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi Cor, When creating a new Database, connecting to an existing one, you can choose Adabas DB... So I guess the code has to do with that? Well I eventually managed to find a free download of Adabas D for Linux. The setup is not trivial, even for an individual user (involves setting up a root account for the db admin, and a separate group, to which all Adabas users need to be added), and I wonder how many individual users would actually go to the trouble of installing it now on their personal computer ? Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 10/06/11 14:48, Francois Tigeot a écrit : Hi François, In the past, some versions of StarOffice were bundled with a limited freeware version of the Adabas database engine. The Adabas support is still present in LibreOffice; howewer, I'm not sure if it is still used or if the free (as in beer) Adabas version is still available somewhere. I would like to know if some people still use it, and on which platforms. You would probably get more input if you posted your question on one of the OpenOffice.org forums, in the Base section. The response from there would probably be more representative, as there don't appear to be many Base users here on this mailing list, or even on the user mailing list. I suppose the real question is : why do you want to remove it if it continues to work OK ? Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 11/06/11 10:45, Francois Tigeot a écrit : Hi François, Where did you find your download copy ? Is it recent ? I had a look at the official website here : http://www.softwareag.com/Corporate/products/adabas/rela_3rd_prod/adad/default.asp and there's no download link. Yeah, you have to be a bit sneaky when filling in the form and register yourself as a private individual - this was the only way I managed to get a download link to both the Windows and Linux version. If you register as corporate or give a business name in the requested identification fields, you get sent an e-mail that tells you where to go for the download, but it also tells you that you can only get Adabas D for Windows Vista and Windows 7. Not that System AG want to limit use of their free product or anything, lol !! Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 11/06/11 10:49, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi Cor, Very very few, I guess ;-) But imagine some deployment have an old DB of that type running on a server. Could well be, isn't it? Well the company say that there is a JDBC driver available, so even if direct support was pulled from LibO, it would still be accessible via JDBC (in theory). Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 11/06/11 10:54, Francois Tigeot a écrit : Hi François, Oh, I'm really indifferent about it; what I'm concerned about is the hardcoded list of platforms determining whether the client library is build or not. Agreed. I'd like to remove this list, and either build the adabas client library for all systems or not at all. There's no need to have artificial platform differences in the code which make porting to new platforms or future maintainance more difficult. If Adabas D really is abandonware, we could kill two birds with one stone. Agreed again. All platforms or nothing seems fair enough. I don't really understand why it was never made available for Mac, guess the owners of Adabas D never thought it was worthwhile. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 10/06/11 14:48, Francois Tigeot a écrit : Hi François In the past, some versions of StarOffice were bundled with a limited freeware version of the Adabas database engine. The Adabas support is still present in LibreOffice; howewer, I'm not sure if it is still used or if the free (as in beer) Adabas version is still available somewhere. I would like to know if some people still use it, and on which platforms. If it is there in the code, it can not be seen anywhere in the UI that I know of, so to all intents and purposes, users are unaware that it is actually there. I seem to recall that it was phased out of the UI sometime during the development of the new Base module with integration of HSQLDB, i.e. somewhere between OOo 1.1.x and OOo 2.x I would expect that most people here, if they didn't know StarOffice/OpenOffice.org from the beginning, would probably not even know that there was Adabas support floating around, and indeed, as I said, I thought that Adabas no longer worked with OOo/LibO. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 10/06/11 14:48, Francois Tigeot a écrit : Me again, In the past, some versions of StarOffice were bundled with a limited freeware version of the Adabas database engine. The Adabas support is still present in LibreOffice; howewer, I'm not sure if it is still used or if the free (as in beer) Adabas version is still available somewhere. I would like to know if some people still use it, and on which platforms. I've just checked on Mac OSX and Adabas is not in the list of available db engines to which a user can connect. So, I can only assume that the only current way to do this in LibreOffice would be via macros or some other scripting language (if that) ? Additionally, the community edition of Adabas is only available for Windows Vista and 7 users, I just went over to Software AG's website and checked. However, looking at the code in the adabas directory in my git repo shows that it could be used as an example for people wanting to develop their own C++ driver implementation for other similar db engines (Firebird anyone ?) I know currently that you can find some stuff in skeleton, but since the mysql connector was implemented, the word from OOo devs was to use the mysql stuff as an example - perhaps the adabas stuff is just obsolete ? Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Adabas database usage
Le 10/06/11 18:46, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi Cor, If it is there in the code, it can not be seen anywhere in the UI that I know of, When creating a new Database, connecting to an existing one, you can choose Adabas DB... So I guess the code has to do with that? It is not available on the Mac, unfortunately, and apparently from my records, never was. Currently, the only version of Adabas available for free is a Community Version that runs on Windows Vista and Windows 7, at least that is what I found out from the Systems AG website. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software Foundation's Incubator
Le 01/06/11 18:14, NoOp a écrit : It will be interesting to see how this works out how TDF will work with ASF. You gotta love corporations :-)) Just 5 months ago, ASF ditched the JCP and told Oracle to go forth and multiply, and now here it is taking on the OOo project - better than any political intrigue ever !! Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: OpenOffice dead and burried?
Le 17/05/11 12:49, plino a écrit : Hi plino, What do they mean by handing it back? Are they giving up on the OpenOffice brand? Can someone from TDF shed some light? Nobody seems to know, or if they do, they are keeping wraps on it. The people still around on the openoffice.org lists are equally at a loss as to what is really going on. Oracle has just shutdown comms. On the German OOo discuss list, some people have been alluding to the fact that the lights are being switched off in Hamburg where the majority of OOo development took place, and I have noticed a distinct reduction of input from Oracle employees on the OOo lists for a while now, not a complete lack, but certainly a significant reduction bordering on the void. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Re: LibreOffice TSC call, Thur May 12th - 15:00 UTC...
Le 16/05/11 11:25, Petr Mladek a écrit : Bug 36991 - crash when duplicating draw page with linked wmf pictures I think a crash in a basic function that might affect many users is not acceptable. I agree that it is annoying and we should fix it ASAP. It seems to behave very randomly. There might be more similar crashes... Well, I think that it need not block the 3.4.0 release. It is reported with linked pictures but pictures are not linked by default. Also I am not able to reproduce this when I link the picture only once. I couldn't reproduce this either on Mac, but this may be due to having other image management libraries I've installed on my system via ports or just OSX's general image handling. For me, it was stable. Bug 36306 - LibreOffice 3.4 beta1 crash in Letter Wizard I think a crash in a basic function that might affect many users is not acceptable. But I am not sure how many users really use that wizard. I agree that it is annoying. Well, as you say, we are not sure how many users need this functionality. I think that it is not a core function and need not be working in 3.4.0. This doesn't crash on OOo 3.4-dev, even though the initial dialog window was also partially off screen. So its a bit more than annoying IMHO. Of course, I'm sounding my own trumpet here, as I do actually write mailmerge letters in different languages for my business activities. Bug 33915 - user settings get lost after several restarts Very Very annoying, but I can't tell how many users might be affected. Happened also with LO-3.3.0 = old = can't block 3.4.0 Reminds me of an old bug that the Ubuntu versions used to have, very disconcerting when you have a pool of users who keep ringing you up and telling you that your latest rollout made all their user settings disappear, and really doesn't make the product look professional !! Again, putting the resources down to fixing things like this all boils down to the question of how serious the Foundation is about making LibO an appealing option to businesses. Not an easy question to answer give the youth of the project at the moment. Bug 34184 - Task: Make E-mail MAILMERGE usable. Since LibO project has started tis feature does not work, and with every new final release fix for the bugs gets shifted to the next and to the next and ... . But it seems I'm the only one using email-mailmerge? Happened also with LO-3.3.0 = old = can't block 3.4.0 No, not the only one by far, this is also one of my pet disappointments, and I know for certain on the French users lists that many administrations (schools, town halls, etc) and software prescribers that currently use or recommend OOo are warning those users and clients to stay away from LibO until the mailmerge issues get fixed reliably. But then, I can't speak for any other community. In administrations, mailmerge is used massively, even if it just for preparing pupils' school marks, or reminders about all sorts of things from club membership payments to a change of day in putting out the trash. It is something that with Microsoft Office does not require a great deal of sophistication. It took years to bring OOo to a reasonably usable state, and now it is seemingly hopelessly broken in LibO, almost overnight in a lot of people's eyes. This is the biggest issue with regard to mailmerge, the visible negative impact on the community of users that followed over from OOo or would like to. Obviously, there appears to be a difference in how the developers within the corporate participants of the LibO project see this and how the users in certain communities see it. Until that difference can be reconciled, we will be stuck in mailmerge noman's land. Alex PS: Sorry to all for hijacking this thread. -- 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
[tdf-discuss] Re: interesting article
Le 18/04/11 20:41, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : Hi all, Just to clarify something im not glad that those people who worked on the OOo project might have the possibility of losing their jobs, I hope that oracle has shuffled them into other development areas. Then again im glad to see the office suite go, as it had so many bugs which never were fixed. The real bummer is that many of the people on that development team in Hamburg have an immensely long history of core coding for the OOo product, some even dating back to when it was StarOffice developed by StarDivision GmbH. That kind of corporate memory loss is hard to replace should it come to that. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: QA - Bug Confirming: Volunteers required
Le 17/04/11 04:20, Christian Lohmaier a écrit : Hi Christian, Yes, I agree - fur the (expanded) purpose of verifying whether resolved fixed issues are actually working in the release, there should be a RC at least (or a version that can be installed alongside the stable version without dirty tricks. But of course it is always hard to tell why people did not show up... Not having a functional test version to test is a major stumbling block IMHO. If you can't even start it, then it is pretty hard to even think about testing it :-)) I would also agree with your statement that turning up to what appears to be an empty IRC discussion does probably not really give the greatest incentive for a wannabe new participant to join the fray, so to speak. I don't remember whether the bug triage session was announced on all the user/discuss lists (including non-English), perhaps we do need to sort of hammer home the message beforehand or perhaps we are just too small an active user base at the moment. Let us not forget that most of us, I guess, came / come from the OOo project, well, I'm speaking for myself here, but I know that many did. Although, to be fair, I never participated in a bug triaging IRC session on OOo, I just got on with looking through a subset of the bugs, and since I have a very small focus, database problems in particular. Perhaps, with regard to LibO, I am too selective. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[tdf-discuss] Re: Libreoffice for Mac
Le 05/03/11 15:20, adept techlists - kazar a écrit : Hi, so far the actual question has not been answered i'm also curious to know if there is a strong Mac porting team among those who are now working on LibreOffice, and whether they will be ensuring Lion compatibility You might be better off asking on the developer list, rather than here, but Christian, who provide you with an answer, is one of the people who builds LibO on Mac, and as far as I know, there are others. As to whether LibO will be adapted specifically to take account of Mac OSX Lion's latest and greatest developments / functions, that would seem unlikely if the build baseline remains Tiger, since many functions have been introduced by Apple post-Tiger that do not work with that release of the OS. Alex -- 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: Approval of our Trademark Policy
Le 04/03/11 01:00, drew a écrit : Hi Drew, Well which is it - is the community logo w/registered trademark, mark or not? - it is both ways on the wiki page above - PNG w/out any mark, SVG with 'registered trademark, while on the trademark policy page it seems that maybe it is just a tm that is appropriate at this time. From a legal point of view, if the trademark is not actually registered then it can only be TM - note here that filed is not the same as registered. Considering that in the US registration takes anything from 12 months to 3 years on average, at least for the US it will have to be TM. It is, by the way, an offence to use (R) or registered trademark in the US if the trademark is not actually registered. As for other countries, well the European Union trademark registration proceedings take approximately a year, if there are no setbacks, such as objections from the Examiner, oppositions by third parties, etc, so again, one is looking at registration proceedings lasting between 1 to 2 years. Other countries will have similar time schedules depending on the degree to which the trademark application is examined. In France, for example, it can take less than a year, approximately 6 to 8 months if all goes smoothly. Suffice it to say that it is unlikely that there are many registered LibreOffice trademarks around at the moment, in which case one should put TM. The TM labelling is only really significant for the US anyway, nearly all other countries have a system based on first-come, first-served registration, whereas the US has both a system of inter-state commerce recognition of use of a trademark, and a federal registration system. 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 ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Strange OpenOffice Email from a new universe
Le 26/02/11 15:21, Joe Rotello a écrit : Hi Joe, A lot of us past OpenOffice.org users are getting Emails now from OpenOffice.org inviting us to a new OpenOffice universe. Overall, this is going to confuse the living daylights out of a great many OpenSource users, of which we are observing the likes of the better LibreOffice 3.3.1 and now Emails regaling us about OpenOffice 3.3.0 that now seems much inferior. It won't confuse them if they have never done anything in the OpenOffice.org project because they won't receive it. The mail, as others have pointed out already, is simply the notification that the OOo project site infrastructure has been migrated to a new platform and that as a consequence thereof your previous password has been reset and a new, temporary one issued pending your re-connection to the site and change of password to one that you prefer. So nothing unusual in my eyes. Alex -- 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: Oracle Contributor Agreement and LibreOffice contributions
Le 24/02/11 16:51, Phil Hibbs a écrit : Hi Phil, Nonetheless, saying it's better for us if you don't submit your patches to OOo is kind of like saying Lets hope OOo don't spot this bug/issue. It's ethically dubious. If this is the official approach, then why not just make a clean break with OOo and not even try to merge in any future OOo code changes with the LO code? At a wild guess, because there are not enough devs in the LibO project to fix all the bugs in the current OOo code and develop new features at the same time ? There is always hope that some of those rather annoying bugs that seem rather hard to fix or obscure to determine might actually get sorted out by the OOo project ;-) Look at Base for example...and I'm just guessing. Alex -- 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: Help with telling the story Re: Accessibility: What's the story?
Le 16/02/11 18:59, drew a écrit : I also have some vague recollection that the state of Massachusetts migration to OOo was rejected because of the lack of accessibility tools at the time, a requirement under that state's procurement laws. So the topic is an important one, especially if LibreOffice wants to get a foothold in US government institutions. Alex -- 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: LibreOffice Community starts 50, 000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation
Le 16/02/11 13:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, I see that this page exists translated into German and Spanish. If I wanted to provide a translation into French, how would I go about doing that ? At present, I have no access as author to the TDF website, and don't see any real need to have one. Couldn't I just send someone the translation ? Alex -- 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: LibreOffice Community starts 50, 000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation
Le 17/02/11 13:25, sophie a écrit : Hi Sophie, I see that this page exists translated into German and Spanish. If I wanted to provide a translation into French, how would I go about doing that ? At present, I have no access as author to the TDF website, and don't see any real need to have one. Couldn't I just send someone the translation ? I was just working on the pages when I see your mail. Would you mind that we coordinate this with Jean-Baptiste on the fr@discuss list? Did you translate the PR too? I haven't translated anything yet, but I've already seen a couple of proposals after I posted a piqure de rappel on the French discussion list. I am easy about it either way, I just jumped on it because it seemed a glaring lack to me, and I know that the French NL group is prety active ;-) I can leave you to it, or you can check out the proposals put forward on the French list. Alex -- 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: LibreOffice Community starts 50, 000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation
Le 17/02/11 16:46, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hi Florian, thanks for your contribution, much appreciated! David or Christian can give you editor rights -- the more localizations we have for the page, the better it is :) Its OK, I don't actually need them, I think Sophie is going to pick up the translation off the French discussion list. Alex -- 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: Oracle Contributor Agreement and LibreOffice contributions
Le 16/02/11 15:28, Christophe Strobbe a écrit : Hi Christophe, 1. Now imagine that I contribute code to LibreOffice and the contribution is accepted. Is it then still acceptable (from a copyright point of view) to sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement and submit the same code to OpenOffice.org? Yes. 2. Conversely, if I sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement and submit code (and it gets accepted, otherwise the copyright reverts to me), can I then still submit the same code to LibreOffice or would that cause problems for LibreOffice (because Oracle now shares copyright of the code I submitted)? 2.b. Can I contribute the code to LibreOffice while the acceptance of my patch to OpenOffice.org is still pending? Yes. Articles 2 and 4 of the OCA (see below for extracts) specifically allow this kind of situation. The assignment provides for joint ownership, or, in the worst case scenario, a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual licence. You are allowed to do what you like with the copyrights you retain as initial author. You agree that each of us can do all things in relation to your contribution as if each of us were the sole owners, and if one of us makes a derivative work of your contribution, the one who makes the derivative work (or has it made) will be the sole owner of that derivative work you agree that neither of us has any duty to consult with, obtain the consent of, pay or render an accounting to the other for any use or distribution of your contribution. Alex -- 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: Computer Magazine cover CDs
Le 09/02/11 19:20, Jonathan Aquilina a écrit : im not saying redistribute it. i would put together a summary of the 20 things we could get an edge against OOo on. the summary basically says that things are slowly improving, with it we can take those things that are slowly improving on OOo and improve them much quicker then OOo. what this would mean we would have more people switch to using LO. I will take a look and report back. Alex -- 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: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
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 ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Mac distribution of LibreOffice: Mac Update and Version Tracker
Le 26/01/11 20:51, Fabián Rodríguez a écrit : Hi Fabian, Someone there mentioned App Update which supports Mac Update and Version Tracker. I noticed LibreOffice is there, are these download channels or information sites up to date or should this be integrated to the release cycle somehow ? I presume many Mac users are using app updater and will see such (possibly outdated) information. Pardon my ignorance, I know next to nothing about Macs or how LibO for Macs is released. MacUpdate used to be free, now you have to pay 20$ to use it, as far as I can tell. As usual, its a question of opportunity / cost. At present, I do not use MacUpdate, and probably won't for the forseeable future since I am quite capable of checking for myself whether program X or Y has been updated, or else I tend to use programs that automatically notify me when an update is available. Alex -- 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
Le 26/01/11 03:43, NoOp a écrit : Hi, Sorry, but IMO RC4/Final should have waited awhile until some of the more basic bugs were resolved. Perhaps LO are now on the distro fast-track (ala Ubuntu et al) rather than sorting out issues and releasing when fully cooked? Perhaps it has more to do with the fact that whoever decided to change the RC4 to final had knowledge that Oracle was going to make RC10 final imminently. After all, it appears that the bugs that were considered blockers for the 3.3 release have all been shifted to 3.3.1 by magic. Alex -- 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: Trademark Policy of the Document Foundation
Le 21/01/11 16:41, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : Hi all, A lightning speed reading of the guidelines brought the following thought to my mind : If you are selling services for TDF software (for example, support), you may not tie the download of the product with the purchase of the service. The download of TDF product using TDF Trademark may not be connected in any way to the purchase of a service. You must provide a statement that (i) TDF software is available for free and link directly to our site; (ii) the purchase of your service is separate from the download of TDF software; and (iii) your service is not affiliated with TDF. This does not cover the case where, as at present with OOo, you have scurrilous people offering downloads (for Windows installers) which, although not requiring the user to sign up for a paid contract (and yes, I know that these exist too), do require the user to pay for an activation code. This can be argued as not providing a service, but rather as a product sale, depending on how strictly the term service is interpreted in a given jurisdiction. It might be wise to enlarge the coverage of the above to include forbidding tying activation codes to downloads where the mark(s) are represented. I will go over the guidelines again and post again here once I have had a deeper think about it all. 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 ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: Mac App Store - or else ?
Le 17/01/11 17:32, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit : Hi Charles, You should also ask all the other devs now :-) What I would like to have, more seriously, is lawyers working on this... Best, This lawyer is busy trying to find time to get its head round the draft TM usage policy/guidelines...and its a very sore head at the moment thanks to an unfortunate accident at the weekend :-/ Alex -- 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: Mac App Store - or else ?
Le 13/01/11 23:44, Larry Gusaas a écrit : Hi Larry, Make it available in the App Store. OOo was always listed in the Open Source software download page at Apple support. That service has now been replaced by the App Store. I checked out the App Store the day before yesterday and was rather disappointed by the paucity of freeware actually available. I had rather hoped that I would indeed find a similar array of content to that which used to be (still is ?) available under the Freeware / Open Source filter of the Apple Software Download page. Perhaps I missed something, or perhaps the store is just too recent (despite it being announced for a while already) for that software to have been included, or then again, perhaps it is the necessity of Apple's Review process that is putting people off. I assume that Apple reviews all of the software that an author might want to put on the store and has the final say in whether the app actually appears there or not ? Alex -- 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: LibreOffice version for Android platform
Le 12/01/11 23:00, Tom Tasche a écrit : As far as reading and writing ODS spreadsheet files are concerned, you should all take a look at Androffice (pay software). It also has the capacity to access GoogleDocs directly. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be going anywhere very fast, at least I have not had an update for a while now. Alex -- 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: Templates unavailable at templates.services.openoffice.org
Le 10/01/11 15:50, Cor Nouws a écrit : Hi all, I am sure it is considered. Maybe this one has slipped through, is in the pipe-line or ?? http://templates.services.openoffice.org/da is working for me with Firefox, but the other N-L sections all return a 503 error. The site is really slow responding too, so I guess there is some kind of maintenance going on, or else the server is virtually out for some other reason. Alex -- 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: (Fwd) The French Gov. loves Microsoft
Hi, Le 03/01/11 12:37, Zaphod Feeblejocks a écrit : I guess if you want to buy an iPad in France, now is a good time to do it! An iPad or any other mobile OS based device, including your telephone :-) (the tax, if finally passed into law, should also affect WindowsMobile phones) - the project targets embedded OSes not designed to run on normal PC hardware. Obviously, the definition retained at present is a nonsense in itself and shows just what a poor understanding French MPs have of operating systems and IT in general (or rather what they have been cleverly misled to understand). The current French government needs money, big time - the mobile/embedded market is still fairly bouyant - what better way to generate a revenue stream to fill the depleted coffers ? ;-) Alex -- 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: TDF/LO on a wrong way?
Hi Johannes, Le 14/12/10 13:52, Johannes A. Bodwing a écrit : Interesting comments and very praiseworthy intentions, but ... So many things are done different in many goups. That costs energy and time and at least motivation. But there are many things that could be done together. Like a common Home-Site or the exchange of articles for LO-Magazins and so on. Perhaps the reasons why this is so are deeply seated in each group's national and cultural identity Where is the common and worldwide frame for the TDF/LO-Project? And where is the structure and organization to find (website?)? Or - how can we build it together? I feel that the more appropriate question should be : where is the Foundation, and what are its values ? As yet, and to my knowledge, the Foundation still has no legal identity, without firm governance. As has been shown on various discussion lists, this has lead to rather a large amount of e-mail exchange without any real possibility to decide and execute concrete actions by the members of the Community at large. If you want to federate everyone under a single hat, then the hat has to actually physically exist in the first place, and someone has to be wearing it. As an example, take the case for the web site development platform. Not only are there still questions as to which website platform we are going to be using, but also we have a fledlging website which, as you rightly say, is a hotchpotch of individual contributions by each of the NL groups. People are not going to sit still and twiddle their thumbs whilst waiting for the pseudo-main site to come online, so naturally have gone about doing their own thing within their own groups. That is not IMHO necessarily a bad thing : most NL group members know what works and what doesn't for their target group, yet by the same token, this leads to an overall impression for the whole of the project as being somewhat disparate and incoherent, especially given the lack of an official centralising power. Again, that might not necessarily be a bad thing with regard to certain audience targets, but IMHO it will affect the opinion of the corporate sector. Corporations don't like external mess when they address an outside project, they have enough of their own to deal with internally, without wishing to bother with why, for a given product, the corresponding website looks different in English to that in Spanish, German, French or Chinese, say. That can be particularly unsettling. On the other hand, informal users are probably quite happy that they can go to their own language part of the site and find things presented in way they understand or can relate to. It all boils down to your target audience. Target companies, and you need coherency, consistency and reliability, both in operation and appearance. Don't get me wrong here, you can still tailor content to individual cultures even in this case, but it has to conform to the corporate way of looking at things. Target individuals, you can tailor your content and organisational structure and operations to please that group of individuals. One way or the other, a decision will have to be made. If such a decision has been made, I can not yet see it filtering down through the bazaar. I don't need a cathedral, but a roof over my head would be nice ;-) Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: It is possible to use Mac's service in Libreoffice
Hi Jih-Yao, Le 07/12/10 09:05, Jih-Yao Lin a écrit : I need to use Mac's service in Libreoffice to communicate with other applications in Mac. But, now these service seems to be dead. What exactly do you mean ? I can see the menu entry Services under the main LibreOffice menu when I start LibO 3.3rc1 EN-US. I also have access to the Preferences submenu of the Services menu. Do you not see these entries ? Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice
Le 23/11/10 23:53, Robert Derman a écrit : As far as 5x7 that is a guesstimation. What I do know for sure is that when I print manuals out there are usually hugely wasteful margins at all 4 sides when they are printed on 8.5x11 inch paper which is the only size commonly available in the U.S. I actually resent the authors forcing me to waste this much paper! It would be interesting to know, just from a statistical point of view, which countries in the world use Letter instead of A4 as their default page size for office documents. Apart from the US, I can't think of many others, but perhaps I am just ignorant of the use of the Letter format throughout the world. Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[tdf-discuss] Re: A proposal for effective, volunteer-friendly user support in LibreOffice
Le 24/11/10 03:31, Marc Paré a écrit : I find that it sometimes does not require much. I had problems with spammers and bots on my sites till I added a captcha where you had to spell words backwards. Spam is now down to a very small trickle and I can now literally monitor new signups and to a quick check to see if they are listed spam logins. Does such a system also prevent false representation, i.e. someone passing themselves off as another member ? With a userid and password combo, this is much harder to do, it seems (notwithstanding one's computer being hacked and one's ID/pwds being stolen) ? Alex -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] FreeDesktop Bugzilla
Hi all, Le 15/11/10 05:39, Marc Paré a écrit : While I think this is a good idea, are you looking to see if this is possible to do on the LO website? IMHO, I think this would be a brilliant idea too, and would help with bug triaging. In my experience, most people's immediate concern / dislike / hatred / frustration of a software product like an office productivity suite is when the document they are working on does not display / print / edit in the way they were expecting or causes a crash or freeze. A central place where these could be left, commented on, analysed etc would be good. However, it would have to, I would think be seamlessly integrated into the LibO website (via linking to an external or an own platform). One of the things at present that is offputting for the non-specialist in the bug submission process is having to go to a site that has nothing to do with LibreOffice whatsoever. To submit a bug for LibO, one has to sign up to the freedesktop submission process : it would make things easier for many if that could all be handled transparently via the LibO website. Just my 2c. Alex -- 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 archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Survey|Opinion - LibreOffice Install and Update
Hi all, Well I have recently acquired a new Macbook Pro for work to replace my old Linux netbook (RIP, sniff), and I also have a Windows XP machine reserved for certain Windows only software that doesn't run well under emulation, so I have been used to using OOo on all 3 platforms. On my Mac I currently have OOo, NeoOffice and LibO. Of the three competitors (for want of a better expression), NeoOffice seems to provide the smoothest update system so far, being able to push small updates relatively frequently. The other two at the moment require a complete download and re-install, not really optimal. Would I love LibO to be updated in smaller increments, the way Sun used to do it with StarOffice ? Yes, please :-) Whilst the installation of LibO on the Mac was painless, it still represents a large download. Also, the installation set of LibO (and of course OOo) on Mac is huge, totalling over 400 Mo : half a gig for an office suite, now that's big and it seems to get bigger with each major revision !! I haven't seen many other Mac programs occupy as much disk space, except for some games. I seem to recall that the Linux and Windows versions are significantly smaller than that once installed. If there was some way that LibO could use the stuff from NeoOffice for updating then I feel that that would be a pretty good way to go. When Neo has an update available, it tells you on startup. You can ignore the update message, or click on it to be taken to the website to download it. It then proceeds to download the fixpack from the server. Installation is by double-click on a disk image that turns out to be a compressed pkg file, but it installs like most of the other Mac pkg files, click, click, accept licence terms, click choose disk, install, enter password, end of story. Nice, clean, neat. I have seen even smoother updates for other software : Adium for example AFAIK, which just seems to look them up, download, install and restart all in one fell swoop - how cool is that ? Just my two cents. Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
RE : [tdf-discuss] Does LO still overwrite OOo?
Hi James, From what I've seen so far on my macbook pro, it writes everything to its own directory. If you are concerned and want to be safe, just back up your /Users/username/Library/Application Support/Openoffice.org folder first. Alex Le 2 oct. 2010 18:08, James Wilde james.wi...@sunde-wilde.com a éc rit : I'm on the Mac, so I can put the dmg file anywhere I like. But I don't know whether it is going to try and get into my OOo templates, under /Library/Application support/OpenOffice/... and all the stuff I have in my personal profile. Since OOo at the moment is my most important application, I don't want to screw it up. TIA //James -- To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.orgdiscuss%2bunsubscr...@documentfo undation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ -- To unsubscribe, send an empty e-mail to discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted. List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
