Re: [tdf-discuss] LibOCon proposals
On 05/02/2012 Florian Effenberger wrote: Jesús Corrius wrote on 2012-02-03 14:08: We had a huge problem in the OpenOffice.org Conference 2007 in Barcelona as more than 1000 people registered for the conference and at the end there were no more than 250 people appeared. ... We should have a registration that e.g. charges 5 € or 10 € and includes a t-shirt with it. We had that for e.g. Orvieto Yes, the idea behind the nominal participation fee in Orvieto (at the OOoCon, actually) was to limit fake registrations. While we were rather flexible about it (in some cases transferring money would have cost more than this symbolic fee), it helped in having accurate participants figures. But I wouldn't mix the two problems, i.e., avoiding that people register for a conference and then, without notice, don't show up and avoiding that random people have a say in deciding where the conference is held. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Can we replace Floppy Disk
On 28/12/2011 Norbert Thiebaud wrote: On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Danishka Navin wrote: Why we still continue the Floppy Disk as the icon for Save button in LibreOffice? When was the last time you saw a phone that look like http://iphonestudio.co.uk/images/uber_iphone_phone_logo.jpg Ironically that 70 years old design is still used on IPhone and others modern cell-phone to indicate: 'telephone' Indeed. An icon is just a convention to convey a meaning and it should not necessarily be a representation of reality. One doesn't usually look for words in a document using a binocular or a magnifying glass, but people can easily associate these icons to Find. For those who want to practice their Italian or stress-test machine translation, here's a nice short and funny article from 1996 by the famous writer Umberto Eco: Icons everywhere? No thanks, I can read. http://tecfa.unige.ch/staf/staf9597/beltrame/STAF13/eco.html Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: A marketing lesson!
On 21/12/2011 Pedro wrote: Do you mean the (L)GPL license allows people to sell copies of LibreOffice? I thought it only allowed to charge for production/distribution costs... It does allow to sell copies, and the Free Software Foundation encourages it. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
On 05/12/2011 Friedrich Strohmaier wrote: Whoever hit that trap: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.documentfoundation.discuss/7271 might probably think scary where to post, and where not. Well, that specific message is probably not a good example, since in the end it was more useful to the list than to me (the intended recipient)! Anyway, I'm happy that the configuration of this list won't change; thanks for listening. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] overall communication guidelines and reply-to mangling
Regina Henschel wrote: All mailing lists I'm described to (and believe me that are a lot) behave in the way that a click on Antwort auf diese Nachricht replies to the list. So keep the documentfoundation.org lists to behave this way too. Only @lists.freedesktop.org behave not that way and that is very annoying. It results in accidentally sending only private answers Same for me. A mailing list, to me, is a group of people discussing together and transparently. When I answer a mailing list message, I'm speaking to everybody in the group and I expect this to be the default behaviour. If you really consider to change it, please let the [sub]scribers vote on it. Converting only one list, especially a -discuss list, seems a confusing move. At least, if one can separate behaviour by domain (i.e., freedesktop.org lists and documentfoundation.org/libreoffice.org lists), it takes less effort to remember when a reply should be addressed differently. However, it seems the experiment has been decided so let's go on, even though I believe that nobody will change his preferences after the experiment, so a preliminary poll would likely yield the same results. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] [POLL] own forums
On 10/11/2011 Florian Effenberger wrote: So, a quick +1/-1 in this thread would be nice to get an overview Mine is -1 to be read as: I would be in favor of an own URL with own branding but the same database as http://user.services.openoffice.org since this would be best for users (and, honestly, more comfortable for me and many other volunteers!) at the moment. Anyway, the poll has the merit of closing the discussion and clarifying that these concerns are (legitimately) not shared by the non-developer members of our Board of Directors. Now that the political issue is over, the rest (choosing technology, finding volunteers) will be much easier. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
On 08/11/2011 Cor Nouws wrote: For some time, I could personally live quite well with a forum that is clearly, visibly, independent serving LibreOffice and other suites. Since suggestions made in that direction seem to be more political than technical feasible, I can leave that illusion. Does this refer to my answers? If it does, then it seems I failed to convey the message: I've always written that the technical execution would have been so easy to be negligible in discussions. So the technical feasibility had never been questioned: it would have been trivial to implement it (read: it takes less than one hour to do it). The main problem would thus have been political, i.e., getting people agree on it. Of course this is only meant as a clarification in case my messages were not clear enough; I don't want to reopen this discussion. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
Cor Nouws wrote: Andrea Pescetti wrote (05-11-11 13:02) when it comes to user support the people involved are much more pragmatic That would be my expectation too. And then 'people involved', I would read as those with questions, answers and with moderation tasks. Yes, that was my understanding. But I'd still give a thought if we can't really avoid the massive duplication of effort and, through simple DNS tweaking, offer the same forum under the two adresses http://user.services.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.libreoffice.org/ ... Sounds as an interesting idea. Then both could redirect to say forum.opensoftwareofficesuites.org (just to give it a name now) which should have a look that is more neutral and serving both. You don't need a third neutral URL: people accessing through http://forum.libreoffice.org/ would always just see that URL, exactly as it happens now with http://user.services.openoffice.org/ and http://ooo-forums.apache.org/ (which are totally equivalent, and if you use one you don't notice that the other one exists). And branding can be adapted too, and possibly made dependent on the URL. But technology is really easy in this case: the main issue, as I wrote, is political. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] user forums ?
On 31/10/2011 Florian Effenberger wrote: What I would like to have is one official LibO forum, either done by us or someone else, that is open for all languages, and run by a group that does not have members who openly show hostility towards TDF. I am not saying that everyone does so, but at least I have heard from some forums, where definitely FUD was spread, and this leaves me with bad feelings. If this is the only issue, then definitely the best option to me seems continuing using http://user.services.openoffice.org/ in the primary interest of users. Whetever discussions and hostility you might have found or felt, when it comes to user support the people involved are much more pragmatic and in this respect http://user.services.openoffice.org/ is truly ecumenical as it professes: LibreOffice is a first-class citizen there. To me you really need very good reasons when it comes to fragmenting user support. While the hostility you felt is definitely bad, it won't affect users, some of whom migrated to LibreOffice just because their distribution did, and expect to continue using the support channels they are familiar with. This said, if the Document Foundation has already made the political choice to create a new channel, then finding volunteers and technical solutions like it's being discussed in the other thread is a minor issue. But I'd still give a thought if we can't really avoid the massive duplication of effort and, through simple DNS tweaking, offer the same forum under the two adresses http://user.services.openoffice.org/ and http://forum.libreoffice.org/ ... Honestly, my preference would be to have our own forum and see if it works. If not, we tried it, and we don't lose that much. The choice is political, not technical, there's no trying here! Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Good bye to all of the community members knowing my name...
On 29/10/2011 Bernhard Dippold wrote: Even if I tried not to compromise my real life by my LibreOffice activities, I had to realize, that I can't reach this goal Thanks Bernhard for your long history of contributions to OpenOffice.org and later LibreOffice. I understand that the time comes when real life must be given priority, but I will miss your analytic, insightful, elaborate comments... Bye, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] ignore m$ legacy?
e-letter wrote: It is difficult to understand why a business would waste time trying to use LO; if a customer uses m$, the supplier might as well do so also and consider the m$ price as a cost of conducting business. I've seen plenty of small, medium and large businesses that chose to use a free software office suite (so far I've only seen OpenOffice.org, but the same arguments would hold for LibreOffice). Virtually none of them did it only to save money, and those who have this kind of motivations are more likely to go back to Microsoft Office, so indeed in this case it would be a waste of time as you suggest. But, in almost all cases I've seen, the reasons were different, like getting rid of dependency on a specific vendor, or being able to run the same office suite across different operating systems. In these cases, switching to a free software office suite is not a waste of time, and compatibility with Microsoft formats is vital. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [steering-discuss] Wiki Work Items updated
André Schnabel wrote: There is one special item Discuss and Clarify TDF position on C. Our position on this is quite clear and has been communicated several time. But there was a suggestion to have a discussion on this last year (Michael Meeks to discuss with Andrea Pescetty). Do we want to come back on this or consider it as done? Provided that C means Copyright Agreements and that the guy is me, you can consider it irrelevant. Back in 2010, I had expressed the position that the Document Foundation might act as Trade Unions for developers and aggregate copyright, envisioning a future in which it had to confront Oracle and discuss licensing with it in view of a possible reunification. Now, that future vision became reality earlier this month. It is clear that the Document Foundation had already envisioned the same scenario, and as everybody (now!) knows the priority of the Document Foundation has been to stick to the licenses it had unilaterally chosen, before discussing any further options; this is perfectly understandable and acceptable of course. If this was and is the view of the Document Foundation, then the entire issue of copyright agreements becomes irrelevant. Anyway, the only occasion to use it would have been in the discussions with Oracle, but that phase is now closed. So the Steering Committee can move on and deal with more current matters. By the way, I was never approached for talks on this issue, but I wouldn't have had much more to say about this and I see no reasons for reopening issues (like licensing and copyright agreements) that have been superseded by history. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [steering-discuss] Wiki Work Items updated
Michael Meeks wrote: On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:45 +0200, Andrea Pescetti wrote: everybody (now!) knows the priority of the Document Foundation has been to stick to the licenses it had unilaterally chosen, before discussing any further options; this is perfectly understandable and acceptable of course. By unilaterally chosen - the reality included private discussion with and approval from IBM Ah, thanks for disclosing this non-trivial detail. Of course, like everybody, I can only comment on what happens in public and not on what happens in secret... One more reason to appreciate the current transparency policy of the Document Foundation (in the bylaws) and hope it will be applied consistently in future. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] New LibreOffice Reader Eliminates Need for PDF Reader
Marc Paré wrote: This thread is really about proposing, to the devs, the possibility of creating a LibreOffice Reader similar to the Adobe .pdf Reader. This could be an idea to investigate, but I don't know how feasible it is; actually there is (or used to be) a read only mode in OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice, but if I recall correctly the LibreOffice developers hated it. if we were to promote a quick and dirty LibreOffice Reader, very much like the Adobe Acrobat Reader, whose sole purpose is to provide the ability to read .odt files, there would be no need to carry .pdf formatted files. This, however, won't work. Document fidelity is not the aim of ODT files, while it is the aim of PDF files (example: font embedding, but one could find many more). Replacing PDF by ODT is just not feasible due to the formats themselves, not to the lack of an ODF Reader. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
RE: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: If I am the copyright holder of my code, I can issue it with a license that requires anyone who modifies my source code to provide me with the changes to my code that they make. ... PS: It is the case that neither the GPL nor APLv2 have such a compulsory condition and it would be interesting to see what the FSF would say in the event someone sublicensed a GPL derivative in that manner. Adding to what Greg already wrote (i.e., you need that a distribution of the software happens in order to enforce this), this requirement is considered compatible with Free Software licenses. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html (search for previous developer or read the last line about revision 1.11). But it is not possible to attach it to existing LGPL3/GPL3 code since it would violate section 10 of GPL3: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Oracle contributes OOo Code to Apache Software Foundation's Incubator
On 01/06/2011 Robert Holtzman wrote: On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:51:09AM -0700, NoOp wrote: http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/06/01/statement-about-oracles-move-to-donate-openoffice-org-assets-to-the-apache-foundation/ TDF's statement included : Today we welcome Oracle’s donation of code that has previously been proprietary to the Apache Software Foundation, it is great to see key user features released in a form that can be included into LibreOffice. Since when is OOo proprietary? I actually asked for a clarification in one of the first comments (#7 at above link), more than 48 hours ago, but nothing happened so far. Either the sentence just means that the code in OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice dating back to around 15 years ago was at that time proprietary (and this would be totally irrelevant in context, and I wouldn't know why someone would write it and relate it to key user features released in a form that can be included into LibreOffice)... ...or it means that people who wrote that blog post know that Oracle released more than just the OpenOffice.org code (and here the candidates would obviously be the proprietary components of Oracle Open Office: incremental updates, Alfresco plugin, migration tools... why not, even Oracle Cloud Office). I hope that the right interpretation is the latter, since this would mean a significant advance available for OpenOffice.org-based suites. But I really cannot guess what the statement meant. The OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal does not contain elements that would justify that sentence in the Document Foundation statement. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Comparison of LO and OO downloads for a non-English language
M Henri Day wrote: 2011/5/28 Stefan Weigel stefan.weigel@... As far as I know, it´s an issue of data volume on the download servers. Which, no doubt, is an question of money. Actually it is just a choice: it does lower the barrier for someone to host a mirror, but the size and upload time are comparable; the ratio between the space needed to host LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org is not an order of magnitude but something like 1/5 or 1/6, especially now that LibreOffice partially dropped support for several dozens of languages (that were actually untranslated). You should also consider that the help pack is kind of optional in LibreOffice, since LibreOffice relies on online (i.e., on a website) help as its primary help system. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] need new string in chart type dialog of line and XY chart for smoothing line with B-spline
On 25/05/2011 Regina Henschel wrote: Steve Edmonds schrieb: Currently it is in English Data points order, that are 17 characters, in German we have Ordnung für Stützpunkte, that are 23 characters, Spanish has 28 characters and fills the dialog area completely. Interpolation Polynomial Degree Degree of Spline Polynomial Degree of Polynomial Degree of Polynomial Is that clear in content? Then it would be good. I have tried other languages with Google. They have similar length. In Italian, where we traditionally have very long strings as in French, Degree of Polynomial would be Grado del polinomio (19); it would be more informative to use Grado del polinomio interpolante (32) which probably exceeds the maximum length; but I think Degree of Polynomial (=Grado del polinomio) is clear enough in context. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Forums - A Different Question
Harold Fuchs wrote: Has Oracle given permission for TDF to use its forum, or doesn't TDF need such permission? Does TDF *want* to use an Oracle resource? I think Drew has already explained this on multiple mailing lists, anyway: the forums at http://user.services.openoffice.org/ are run by community members and not by Oracle, they explicitly include LibreOffice among the supported software (see page header), they can be used with no need for permissions from Oracle, and they are probably the best place where LibreOffice users can get support if they don't like mailing lists. Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [tdf-discuss] QA - Bug Confirming: Volunteers required
Christian Lohmaier wrote: Or maybe people did join, waited a little and then left again without writing a word, because the channel itself was silent. This was more or less my case. I connected in the afternoon European time, I saw no activity at all for one hour, I realized that 12PM (i.e., noon) in http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/QA/IRCSessions#Bug_Triage_Training_Session really meant that the sessions was to be held in the morning only (European time) and I left since I didn't feel like writing in a chatroom full of people but no signal of activity. Actually, my main interest was not in unconfirmed bugs, but in deduplication of LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org issues, since I feel that cross-linking the common issues would save time both for QA volunteers and developers. How to deal with this problem has been asked several times (on this list too) but with no answer: it would be great to have a policy on this (i.e., how to deal with LibreOffice bugs that exist, or are being addressed, or have been fixed, in the OpenOffice.org code, taking into account that LibreOffice still imports the OpenOffice.org code on a regular basis). Regards, Andrea. -- 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
Re: [steering-discuss] Reducing donation ads
On 18/03/2011 Kazunari Hirano wrote: We Japanese, from the bottom of our heart, appreciate your help and supports form abroad. If you take a look at some articles in my blog http://openoffice.exblog.jp/ you will see the grave situation. Thanks khirano for your reconstruction efforts and your frequent updates from Japan. For those who haven't followed, khirano asked the OpenOffice.org community (for the broadest possible meaning of this term, I'd say) for help; donations are being collected using the existing channels, see http://openoffice.org/projects/qa/lists/dev/archive/2011-03/message/39 and the first donations have already been sent him. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Vertical Text not working
On 13/03/2011 Andreas Mantke wrote: Am Sonntag, 13. März 2011, 04:39:15 schrieb Kunal Singh: View Toolbars Drawing Vertical Text not working. I tried with LibreOffice 3.3.2-x64-rc1 on openSUSE 11.3-x64 KDE 4.4.4 and I can't persuade the icon for vertical text to appear in the drawing toolbar. This seems http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54423 Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Mail List issues
On 09/03/2011 NoOp wrote: Note: it seems that I've fallen into this category on the OOo list; after 5 years of posts, I'm suddenly no longer subscribed, nor can I comment on OOo bug reports any longer unless I create a new username/password... but that's another story Yes, that is another story (not related to LibreOffice or to the current discussion) and if the password reset function of http://openoffice.org/people/forgot_password does not help you, you should notify the ooo-migration discuss list: to join it, you'll need to register on http://kenai.com/projects/ooo-migration/lists or send a message with subject help to sy...@ooo-migration.kenai.com and follow the instructions; the web interface is more convenient. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Disclaimer
Italo Vignoli wrote: On 3/9/11 9:53 PM, RGB ES wrote: support to both, OOo and LibO and to help the Spanish localization of both projects under the same umbrella (something similar to PLIO project for Italian(1)). ... Totally wrong. PLIO at the moment is divided between people that want to support both projects and people who are against TDF. I am not any more involved with PLIO in any way, as I have resigned from any role This discussion is about OOoES, which I don't know anything about, and I'm not going to spend much time on it. However, since you mentioned PLIO, I'll just add to the words by Italo that PLIO is still acting as a group, with someone preferring OpenOffice.org, someone preferring LibreOffice, someone liking both and someone waiting. And work being actively done for both projects, although we are surely missing Italo's marketing activity. (1) BTW, PLIO is Progetto Linguistico Italiano OpenOffice.org, why people here do not like to see the three o on oooES name? You should ask to PLIO members, and I don't see PLIO members in this discussion. The question was of course not meant for PLIO members. (I am a PLIO member but I'm not speaking on behalf of PLIO; and, again, I realize PLIO has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion: sorry for drifting off-topic). Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Example: Strange OpenOffice Email from a new universe
Joe Rotello wrote: On the subject of an example of the Email received... Here's my initially-received copy. I include the header info for ones perusal. OK, then I confirm what I wrote in http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg05281.html and others confirmed in the meantime: it just announces the completion of the big openoffice.org infrastructure renewal, that has been in the talks for at least 5 years and in the works since at least 2009. And of course it cannot be confused at all with an announcement about LibreOffice, or with anything else than what it is, i.e., a plain service announcement. It even contains links to the official pages describing the move: http://www.openoffice.org/news/#move Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: RE : Re: [tdf-discuss] Strange OpenOffice Email from a new universe
On 26/02/2011 Charles-H. Schulz wrote: You can copy and paste it here,of course :-) Since nobody forwarded the message in the end, and I didn't receive it myself, I can only speculate it is the expected message notifying all openoffice.org (the site, not OpenOffice.org the software) users about the infrastructure change: http://www.openoffice.org/news/#move It is the biggest infrastructure change ever for openoffice.org and the outcome is undeniably a big improvement over CollabNet; the openoffice.org infrastructure was frozen for the whole week (21-25 February) to allow the migration. Everyone who used their openoffice.org password in the last 18 months (and I'm sure this includes most people on this list) should receive a notification asking them to reset their password. I really doubt this could be confused with a LibreOffice-related announcement, but, again, nobody posted the message here and I'll be happy to confirm or refute my speculation when somebody really forwards it. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Contributors' names in LibO 3.3: how to ask for a correction?
On 25/01/2011 Gianluca Turconi wrote: I post here because I've just read a message about credits in LibO 3.3 and so I've checked them ... I' haven't found among the contributors the name of Davide Prina, co-author of the Italian spellchecker dictionary. ... Furthermore, I've checked the THIRDPARTYLICENSEREADME.html file and there, there is Davide's name and not mine as copyright owner... :) Both OpenOffice.org 3.3 and Libreoffice 3.3 ship the same extension for the Italian dictionary, and will install two files named README_it_IT.txt and README_th_it_IT.txt containing proper credits and copyright and licensing information. These files are more reliable and up-to-date than other sources. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [Libreoffice] [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
Rene Engelhard wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13:48AM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: Besides that, distros will have to continue libreoffice-build, which does still contain patches. (Removing those would be a big regression about what we ship right now) Thanks. So some distributions will still need to patch LibreOffice because the vanilla LibreOffice would be a regression for their users with respect to the current OpenOffice.org/Go-OO/LibreOffice they ship. This, together with issues like the weird problem you linked to https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31271 indeed qualify as compelling arguments for distributions needing to patch LibreOffice much like they do with OpenOffice.org (even though of course in some cases the patches will be temporary fixes that will eventually get merged in the main codebase). Get some clue. And don't speak about this if you don't, kthxbye. ... Sorry, I apologize No need. LibreOffice is meritocracy-driven, not politeness-driven. Thanks, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
On 19/01/2011 Cor Nouws wrote: Andrea Pescetti wrote (18-01-11 21:13) LibreOffice bugs like http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg04508.html ... The bug you point to, does not suggest that they will make substantial changes, though? Well, at a first glance I'd say that modifying the code handling formulas in Writer tables is a deeper change than what I had expected from a distribution. Kohei Yoshida mentioned an extra formula support not integrated into LibreOffice proper in http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg04524.html so this would be one of those cases where the distribution chooses to modify the plain LibreOffice since shipping the plain one would be a regression, as explained by Rene'. But I didn't look at the relevant code and I am not aware of further investigations. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] New year - new listmailfooter
Friedrich Strohmaier wrote: If You think, it beeing a good thing to have a posting guidelines pointer in the footer, then I'll be glad to put it in there for all active Mailinglists. I agree it's a good thing to have it, and I suggest to seize this opportunity to get rid of the eternity tagline if possible, in favor of a less flamboyant formulation. Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO build numbers
Rainer Bielefeld wrote: My current version comparing with previsious version: 3.3.0 RC4 - WIN7 (64bit) German UI [OOO330m19 (build 6 / tag 3.3.0.4)] 3.3.0 RC3 - WIN7 (64bit) German UI [OOO330m19 (build 5 / tag 3.3.0.3)] I am astonished to see OOO300m19 for both OpenOffice.org 3.3-RC9 (OOO300m19) fixed two bugs from RC8 but introduced a new bug, now fixed in RC10. LibreOffice decided to essentially go back to RC8 instead, by removing most of the new code from RC9 (so it's still based on RC9, but it is actually mostly RC8 now). This means it still has the two bugs from RC8, but not the new bug from RC9 and its fix in RC10. I hope this summary is accurate, but for more details you'll need to see http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-January/005835.html Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Spam filtering the mailing lists
Friedrich Strohmaier wrote: Jonathan Aquilina schrieb: I was cleaning out my junk folder to find there were at least 7 emails which Thunderbird was nice enough to filter from my gmail inbox. These for shure were mails sent to one of the mailinglists? To which one? ... No single one coming through here sent by the lists I subscribed (de-discuss, tdf-discuss, steering-discuss). The developers' mailing list http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice is not moderated and spam messages do appear there from time to time, but still in a number I don't find excessively disturbing. See the ongoing discussion at http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2011-January/thread.html#6010 Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Linux distros and LibO packaging
On 09/01/2011 Jean-Baptiste Faure wrote: I think that we should have a webpage where Linux distributions who are packaging LibO, could list what changes they made compared to the official build by TDF. ... So, is it a good idea to ask the Linux distributions to publish the changes they made to the official build ? It is a good idea to track changes, but it is probably a questionable practice to make changes. I expected LibreOffice to be consistent across distributions (something that of course at the moment is not true of OpenOffice.org since most distributions apply significant patches to it). Are there compelling reasons why distributions should ship versions of LibreOffice that have significant changes with respect to the official version? The OpenOffice.org experience, and the first distribution-specific LibreOffice bugs like http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg04508.html make me think that fragmentation, while of course allowed by the license, should be discouraged when it comes to functionality; I'm not questioning desktop integration or branding, but I'd like to know why distributions feel they have to make changes to functionality... Regards, Andrea. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Content of Beta3 Windows Install-Packages
Thorsten Behrens wrote: Christian Lohmaier wrote: Brazilian version has traditionally (i.e. OOo-times) been a different package/has not been called OpenOffice.org in Brazil, but BrOffice due to trademark issues. ... Yep - but since BrOffice is a well-established brand, and under community control, we'll continue to use it for the pt_BR versions. I cannot find references now, but the trademark issue for OpenOffice.org had already been solved in Brazil earlier this year, wasn't it? And the Brazilians decided to keep using the established name BrOffice for branding reasons, even when OpenOffice.org was an option too. So it makes sense to apply the same reasoning in the LibreOffice case, even though the duplicate multi-language installation files seem a bit too much... but probably they are just symlinks on mirrors, not taking any additional space. Regards, Andrea. -- 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] changed footers of all documentfoundation and libreoffice.org mailing lists
Sigrid Carrera wrote: 2010/11/24 Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org: What do others think? I still clearly favor the non-poetic version ;) I have no real preference. But in my opinion, the non-poetic version looks to me more professional. So I vote for this one. I will very rarely get to read that line, being it the last line of the standard message appendix, but I'd favor the professional (and by this I mean non-poetic) version too. Regards, Andrea. -- 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] Re: LibreOffice should have own LibreOfficeFont
Harold Fuchs wrote: Mateusz Zasuwik mzasu...@gmail.com wrote ... http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html http://ooblog.pl/2010/02/06/polska-swiatowym-liderem-we-wdrozeniu-openoffice/(polish) The study relies on extricating fonts installed on the system and identify the installed Office suites. ... That's a very clever idea but how was it implemented? How do you (or FlashCounter) decide what fonts are installed on my system? The technical explanation is in the first link above. What approval did I give for that to be done? If you installed Adobe Flash, the answer to this and most of the remaining questions is in the license you accepted... Best regards, Andrea. -- 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: [libreoffice-website] Re: [tdf-discuss] FreeDesktop Bugzilla
Sebastian Spaeth wrote: I don't know if and how easy this would be in drupal. So far I have coded a very simple webform in django (python is my thing :-)) to allow uploading a document and a comment. This would be elementary in Drupal. The only thing that is then left, is to link the uploaded doc to a bugzilla issue and display the status from the bug in question. The linking to a bug would (in my vision), not necessarily happen by the user, but by QA team, that vets those entries. And this triaging phase is indeed the main challenge, both in technical and in resources (volunteers) terms. Regards, Andrea. -- 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] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: Andrea Pescetti a écrit : Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for contribution was lowered ... the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see it as the most effective improvement. The paperwork was only a practical detail: not relinquising your copyright is the most important. I haven't seen any new contributor write that they joined because of (the refusal of) a copyright agreement; while I have seen several new contributors write that they started contributing because the Easy Hacks were so easy that they didn't require any previous technical knowledge. So, unless this theory can be supported by numbers, the mere refusal of copyright assignments/agreements does not seem to me the reason why new contributors were attracted. So we do take for granted that Oracle will not contribute to the Document Foundation, because that's what Oracle clearly implied in their last press release and what they told us (informally). This has to be very clear from now on. We are still open for future discussions, of course, but what you seem to imply is that conditions for a cooperation would require the document foundation to assign copyright (the contributions of the LibreOffice developers) back to Oracle again. No, I never thought this, let alone write, let alone imply. if we find a way to cooperate, I can assure you that the condition will not be that we give our copyright to Oracle. Of course. I'll retry. If the Document Foundation wants to live in the real world, it will have to discuss with companies that work on OpenOffice.org and its derivatives (and this is peculiar to the OpenOffice.org codebase, so examples taken from elsewhere might not fit). Now, without copyright assignment/agreement (granted by the LibreOffice developers to the Document Foundation), the Document Foundation will be in the awkward situation I described: it manages a product (LibreOffice) but cannot represent the LibreOffice developers since it doesn't own the code. This makes it a weaker player: if the Document Foundation MANAGED, say, 20% of the OOo+LibreOffice code, then its weight in talks with corporations can be proportional to it. But if it merely REPRESENTS 20% of the code but still any decisions must be ratified by the individual developers, its weight will be much lower. Do you need an example? Think of a happy ending where, to the benefit of users, OOo and all derivatives merge in a common project. There are many stakeholders (Oracle, IBM, Novell, Red Hat, Redflag, the Document Foundation...) and they might agree on a new, free, license with some special provisions due to the long history of OOo. Now, without copyright assignments/agreements every stakeholder would be able to join the unified project except the Document Foundation. By choosing against copyright assignments/agreements you are killing this dream... And I can't see how the Document Foundation could realistically say it is open to discuss with companies in this setting. Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- 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] Re: Compiling in Windows
plino wrote: One of the bugs I reported (which is now obsolete, but still there) caused that a user would loose data ... And the bug has been ignored since then (this was in November 25th 2009) Could you provide the OpenOffice.org issue number? Honestly I can't understand how you can state that the bug is obsolete and at the same time complain it is being ignored, but if it is meaningful it can be solved in LibreOffice or upstream in OpenOffice.org. Best regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- 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] Copyright Assignments the Document Foundation
Charles-H. Schulz wrote: We initially agreed not to request the assignment of copyright for code contributions, and we can only witness that it's been so far the right decision: Many developers have joined us and contribute Honestly, I believe new developers joined because the bar for contribution was lowered to the point that anyone who can use a text editor can contribute to the code, even if he is unable to build LibreOffice. The Easy Hacks were a nice way to attract new people. Of course the paperwork reduction may have helped too, but I don't see it as the most effective improvement. 3) ... In the CVS (and even SVN) there was a real hierarchy. ... BTW; LibreOffice uses Git, which is a distributed SCM. So did (and still does) OpenOffice.org with Mercurial, another distributed SCM. But I don't believe this is relevant. 4) the notion that we cannot change license because we don't have copyright assignment needs to be put to rest once and for all today. There is a very simple explanation with respect to this issue; ask any lawyer and he/she will confirm this: Sun/Oracle has licensed the OOo code under LGPL v3. They could have put LGPL v3 or later or LGPL v3 or +. But they didn't. And that's what makes impossible to turn OOo into a different license unless the sole copyright owner agrees to change it, which is unlikely with Oracle. Well, if you take for granted that cooperation between Oracle and the Document Foundation will forever be impossible then you are right. But who knows what will happen in months, years? If Oracle changes attitude and wants to discuss licensing with the Document Foundation, the Document Foundation will be in the awkward position of representing the LibreOffice developers only in theory, because any agreement would then need to be confirmed with every developer; while with a copyright agreement/assignment in place, the Document Foundation could effectively represent a measurable percentage of the codebase, and its opinion be weighed accordingly. Best regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- 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] why LibO?
Fridrich Strba wrote: I changed the occurences of LO in the build to LibO. Please, could you come to an agreement? I think it's kind of official, see http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/msg00430.html Regards, Andrea. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] We're on slashdot
Ian wrote: On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 08:08 -0400, Marc Paré wrote: how could a corporation come in and take over a community and take control of their budget? Because there was no legal entity - that is why a Foundation was needed from the outset. Well, OpenOffice.org donations go to Team OpenOffice.org e.V. (not to be confused with OpenOffice.org Deutschland e.V.) http://contributing.openoffice.org/donate.html and the treasurer of Team OpenOffice.org e.V. happens to be from Oracle: http://council.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=budgetmsgNo=255 and again we are back in the situation Jean correctly described as messy. Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] Please embed dictionaries in Danish lang-pack and install
Andras Timar wrote: Inclusion of dictionaries in the langpacks is a different problem. Linux builds do not include dictionaries, because they use dictionaries from the system. Strange. Language packs in OpenOffice.org (including those for Linux-based systems) do include dictionary, thesaurus and hyphenation patterns: see http://download.services.openoffice.org/files/extended/3.2.1rc2/ Is LibreOffice's packaging different from this point of view? And why? Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [tdf-discuss] QA Infrastructure
Caio Tiago Oliveira wrote: Per Eriksson, what do you need on the server to run QATrack? I don'tspeak for Per, but until I maintained it QATrack was a rather standard LAMP application and, as far as I could see,this is still the case. But Andre' already clarified that qatrack.services.openoffice.org, the current instance of QATrack, is on community-run servers and that a fresh installation wouldn't be problematic. Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- To unsubscribe, 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/
Re: [tdf-discuss] QA Infrastructure
Thorsten Behrens wrote: I'd prefer if we do the 3.3 release in a somewhat lightweight fashion As I understood from an earlier message of yours, LibreOffice 3.3 will be heavily based on OOo 3.3 and I thus agree with the lightweight testing. the OpenOffice.org QA project has things like QATrack, QUASTe, and TCM - but I wonder which of those pass the test of we really need it I actually believe that these are fundamental tools to assess quality of a build, and that insufficient testing could mean that LibreOffice is doomed to be the nicer but more buggy brother of OOo forever in the public opinion. At least, I recommend that new tests are written for any LibreOffice specific functionality, that we have a tool to track them (kind of TCM) and a tool to track releases (QATrack being the natural candidate here). Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- 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/
Re: [tdf-discuss] [GENERAL] eWeek coverage of LibreOffice
jcausey_df wrote: Just passing along some coverage of LibreOffice coming out today in eWeek's updates: OpenOffice.org Launches LibreOffice Suite to Break Free of Oracle http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Enterprise-Applications/OpenOfficeorg-Launches-LibreOffice-Suite-to-Break-Free-of-Oracle-419664/ I wonder whether this paragraph from the above article is true: --- LibreOffice will have a dual license, falling under LGPLv3+ and MPL (GNU Lesser General Public License and Mozilla Public License). --- or if it just one of the many unsourced, unchecked statements about LibreOffice appearing here and there these days. Regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- 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/
Re: [tdf-discuss] [FAQ] new entries (here: CA/JCA/SCA)
On 02/10/2010 Dr. Bernhard Dippold wrote: Q: What are copyright agreements (CA/JCA/SCA) with Oracle and why are they counterproductive to OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice and FOSS? Honestly I would be much more pragmatic here. Since we are on a catch-all mailing list it's better that I first state a few plain facts involving Copyright Agreements/Assignments and OOo or Free Software. 1) Oracle will never be able to sue LibreOffice for patent violations, and this is true thanks to a copyright agreement. OOo 1.x-2.x was distributed under LGPL 2.1 and Sun could update the licence to LGPL 3, when OOo 3.x was released, only because of the copyright agreements in place. The request came from the community (I remember Charles calling for it), but the actual change was only possible due to copyright agreements otherwise it would have been impossible to reach out to all contributors, including dead ones. LGPL 3 (through article 11 of the included GPL 3) protects LibreOffice from patent claims. 2) Copyright Agreements/Assignments are commonplace in Free Software. The Free Software Foundation itself required me (like all contributors to FSF projects) to assign them the copyright of any contributions, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html . The Mozilla Foundation, if I recall correctly, does not require an explicit copyright assignment, but reserves the right to change the license at any time (MPL, Article 11). Does this mean that contributions to FSF projects or Mozilla Foundation products can be included in proprietary software at any time if the relevant Foundation wants so? Yes. Will they ever do that? Here is the real point. The main flaw with the (improving over time) Sun/Oracle Copyright Agreements/Assignments was that the entity in control was a company, not a democratic, independent, trustworthy foundation. I believe that the Document Foundation, once formally established, will totally deserve my trust, and I think I won't have any regrets in sharing with the Document Foundation the copyright over my contributions, and this will also make the Document Foundation stronger. So I would: A - Remove the /LibreOffice and FOSS from the question. B - Rewrite the answer (I use Jonathon's text as a basis) as: Contributors to the OpenOffice.org project have had to sign a contract that assigns (joint) ownership of their contributions to Sun, and subsequently Oracle. This enabled Sun/Oracle to include that contribution in a proprietary product, thus giving to one company too much control over the OpenOffice.org project. C - Kindly ask the the Document Foundation's stakeholders, when they define the official policy, to avoid presenting Copyright Agreements/Assignments as inherently bad: very respectable Foundations promoting Free Software do use them, in the interest of their projects, and a trustworthy Foundation should not be afraid to ask for them. Best regards, Andrea Pescetti. -- 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/
