On Sul, 2006-05-14 at 19:52 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Since lawyers talk .doc, and use revision control to track changes to the
documents, that's what we ge too.
Disappointing. I hope the foundation will reconsider that decision and
post its documents in open formats as well.
Alan
Selon Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sul, 2006-05-14 at 19:52 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Since lawyers talk .doc, and use revision control to track changes to the
documents, that's what we ge too.
Disappointing. I hope the foundation will reconsider that decision and
post its documents in
On 5/15/06, Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Selon Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sul, 2006-05-14 at 19:52 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Since lawyers talk .doc, and use revision control to track changes to the
documents, that's what we ge too.
Disappointing. I hope the foundation will
On Llu, 2006-05-15 at 15:25 +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
I can certainly post a copy in ODT later in the week which gets converted into
.doc every time we need to go to the lawyers... I won't always have the time
to
do it promptly, though.
I will note that there are several high-quality free
- A .doc file may render in many different ways, especialy if it
contains macros. Which is definitive, the contract as rendered by MS
Word or by Abiword or by OpenOffice ?
Stick to your open formats argument; it serves you better. ODT makes
no guarantees that the documents will look the same
On Llu, 2006-05-15 at 10:19 -0400, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
Stick to your open formats argument; it serves you better. ODT makes
no guarantees that the documents will look the same across renderers
or platforms. If the apps used exactly the same layout algorithms with
the same fonts, ligature
I've updated the topic; the document in quesiton concerns commercially
licensing the Foundation's trademarks, not its copyrights.
To get back on topic, I think that a few substantive terms of the
contract merit clarification.
Section 18, LICENSEE .. agrees to cooperate in any action or
