On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 13 Jul 2011, at 15:10, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 13 Jul 2011
On 13 Jul 2011, at 15:10, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 13 Jul 2011, at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
> If a project decides to
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13 Jul 2011, at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
If a project decides to create a canonical place to find things like
extensi
When just considering my own preference, w/o trademark implications:
+1 for "Apache OpenOffice", or for keeping "OpenOffice.org" to stick
with the well known brand.
As "OpenOffice.org" can't be used w/o the Apache prefix, this only
leaves us with "Apache OpenOffice".
+1 because I like it, a
On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 13 Jul 2011, at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> If a project decides to create a canonical place to find things like
>>> extensions and templates then we will expect the (P)PMC to demonstrat
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 13 Jul 2011, at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> If a project decides to create a canonical place to find things like
>> extensions and templates then we will expect the (P)PMC to demonstrate
>> active oversight of that repository.
>
> To clar
On 13 Jul 2011, at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
> If a project decides to create a canonical place to find things like
> extensions and templates then we will expect the (P)PMC to demonstrate
> active oversight of that repository.
To clarify this, Sam: Do you mean that any external repository would n
Again, I want to drive home the difference between questions of law
(which we forward to attorneys) and questions of policy (which are
determined by the appropriate Officer of the ASF).
If you wish to advocate for a change to the Branding Policy, perhaps
the best way is to propose a patch to the f
Reminder: you will need some folks with the appropriate Admin role to
moderate (or screen out) comments on your blog. I imagine once you
start posting you may get a number of readers.
Folks may also be interested in following Planet Apache:
http://planet.apache.org/
- Shane
On 7/8/2011 5:1
On 7/12/2011 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking
some deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
interests in one or the other direction.
And in the end, the user rules, n
To top post on the top posting, I think the most important thing to
consider is: this decision does not need to be made today. Or even this
week. Or even this month.
I think it would be far more valuable in the near future to get some
code in place, and provide better public explanations of
On Jul 12, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
>>> has previously experienced and it might be worth hav
Indeed, the podling will need to conform to the Apache Project Branding
Requirements before it graduates to TLP:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs
Note that a key requirement is using a project (and product) name in the
form of "Apache Foo". What the Foo is is up to the project to
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
>
>> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
>> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
>> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk
On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:50 PM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
> has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
> watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
> / advisable t
To recap...I think this might be a slightly different situation than Apache
has previously experienced and it might be worth having the ASF Trademark
watchdogs and ASF lawyers talk through the pros and cons of what's possible
/ advisable to do in this special case. That conversation could impact /
Hi,
2011/7/12 Pedro F. Giffuni
>
>
> --- On Tue, 7/12/11, Graham Lauder wrote:
> ,,,
> >
> > All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand. There has
> > been a lot of noise around LibreOffice with those
> > Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now distributing
> > with LO, but those numbers, compare
day.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 17:57
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
> +1
>
> That works for me, con
--- On Tue, 7/12/11, Graham Lauder wrote:
,,,
>
> All this under the OpenOffice.org Brand. There has
> been a lot of noise around LibreOffice with those
> Linux Distributions who used Go-OOo now distributing
> with LO, but those numbers, compared to OOo across all
> platforms are miniscule and
Original Message-
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 17:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
+1
That works for me, conceptually. I don't have any history with OpenOffice.org,
the project
Yes, exactly!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>
> Of course it
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>>
On 12 Jul 2011, at 15:38, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjecti
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>
>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>> one or the other direction.
>>
>> And i
See Daneese Cooper's emails.
On Jul 12, 2011, at 7:03 AM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>>
>> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
>> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
>> one or the o
On 12 Jul 2011, at 13:32, Kai Ahrens wrote:
>
> Of course it makes a difference to ask our users instead of asking some
> deeply involved people on this list, having very subjective interests in
> one or the other direction.
>
> And in the end, the user rules, not any marketing speech.
While th
Am 12.07.2011 14:36, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 07/12/2011 02:28 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
>> Am 12.07.2011 14:18, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>> Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> When the users actually do what they want to name the product
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
>
Am 07/12/2011 02:28 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
Am 12.07.2011 14:18, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
project, IMHO then there is no need to change anyth
Am 12.07.2011 14:25, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham
>> Lauder wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> If Apache forced this
Am 12.07.2011 14:18, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
>> Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
>>> When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
>>> project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
>>> predict. The
Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
the project.
Am 07/12/2011 02:01 PM, schrieb Kai Ahrens:
Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid a
> These seems like something we could debate endlessly without
> resolution. But I wonder if a more definitive answer might come from
> a survey of users and other market participants, looking at branding
> perceptions, trying out a few variations on the name, seeing which
> ones elicit the most p
Hi Marcus,
Am 12.07.2011 12:30, schrieb Marcus (OOo):
> When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
> project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
> predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any
> legal problems with comp
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
>> > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
>> > the project.
>>
>> You're misportraying the fa
When the users actually do what they want to name the product and/or
project, IMHO then there is no need to change anything that you cannot
predict. Then we can stick with the known brand name and also avoid any
legal problems with companies that use also "OpenOffice" as brand.
Marcus
Am 07
Am 12.07.2011 10:59, schrieb Graham Lauder:
> http://www.webmasterpro.de/portal/news/2010/02/05/international-openoffice-market-shares.html
>
> It is important that we maintain that share and grow it.
> There is a large community: 35,000 individuals subscribed to OOo
> maillists when I last che
Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:
No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
+1
Keep it as simple as possible. For the non-IT centric rest of man
> -Original Message-
> From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 6:46 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
> O
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> > the project.
>
> You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
> predates OOo bei
; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gavin McDonald
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You misunderstood,
> > >
> > > the project name becomes the subdomain name associated wit
> -Original Message-
> From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 6:36 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
> O
gt; From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM,
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:55 AM, Pavel Janík wrote:
>> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the development
>> project and the product brand names exactly the same.
>
> Another proposal:
>
> Product name: OpenOffice.org.
>
> Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
.. and domai
posting, one of the sins of replying to html email.
Gav…
From: acolor...@gmail.com [mailto:acolor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexandro
Colorado
Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:58 PM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ga...@16degrees.com.au
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
On Tue
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 2:41 AM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re:
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 19:54 -0400, Carl Marcum wrote:
> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
>
> If there are indeed going to to be 2 websites, OpenOffice.org which is
> where end users go to get the pr
> -Original Message-
> From: Marcus (OOo) [mailto:marcus.m...@wtnet.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 July 2011 5:11 PM
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
>
> Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
> >> It
Am 07/12/2011 08:55 AM, schrieb Pavel Janík:
It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the development
project and the product brand names exactly the same.
Another proposal:
Product name: OpenOffice.org.
Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
I'm strongly against mixing OOo
2011/7/12 Pavel Janík
> > It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
> development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
>
> Another proposal:
>
> Product name: OpenOffice.org.
>
> Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
>
> I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO
> It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the development
> project and the product brand names exactly the same.
Another proposal:
Product name: OpenOffice.org.
Project name: Apache OpenOffice.org.
I'm strongly against mixing OOo and OO here.
--
Pavel Janík
o-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
If there are indeed going to to be 2 websites, OpenOffice.org which is
where end users go t
It seems to me that a lot of the problem arises in keeping the
development project and the product brand names exactly the same.
If there are indeed going to to be 2 websites, OpenOffice.org which is
where end users go to get the product, help, etc. and the
.apache.org where the development pr
On 07/11/2011 10:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
2011/7/11 Rob Weir:
2011/7/11 André Schnabel:
Hi,
Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
fresh, but you did not go with a
Danese Cooper wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:41:30 -0700:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>
> > Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> > > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> > > the project.
> >
> > You're mispo
On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Danese Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>
>> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
>>> If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
>>> the project.
>>
>> You're misportraying the
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> > If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> > the project.
>
> You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
> predates OOo bein
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:
> 2011/7/11 Rob Weir :
>> 2011/7/11 André Schnabel :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
fresh, but you did not go with a ".org" name.
>>>
2011/7/11 Rob Weir :
> 2011/7/11 André Schnabel :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>
>>> From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
>>> fresh, but you did not go with a ".org" name.
>>
>> It did not matter that we had the opportunity to start fresh - wha
Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:43:17 +0700:
> If Apache forced this without discussion it would be a bad start for
> the project.
You're misportraying the facts; it's a preexisting Apache policy that
predates OOo being proposed as a podling.
Now, we're generally reasonable people he
On 11 July 2011 17:58, Rob Weir wrote:
> 2011/7/11 André Schnabel :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
> >>
> >> From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
> >> fresh, but you did not go with a ".org" name.
> >
> > It did not matter that we had the oppo
2011/7/11 André Schnabel :
> Hi,
>
> Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>
>> From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
>> fresh, but you did not go with a ".org" name.
>
> It did not matter that we had the opportunity to start fresh - what really
> did matter was that
Hi,
Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
fresh, but you did not go with a ".org" name.
It did not matter that we had the opportunity to start fresh - what
really did matter was that we *had to* start fresh.
Anyway - every
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Andre Schnabel
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Von: Javier Sola
> >
> >>
> >> This product competes with another one whose main disadvantage is not
> >> having the name OpenOffice.org, and who is already producing wo
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Von: Javier Sola
>
>>
>> This product competes with another one whose main disadvantage is not
>> having the name OpenOffice.org, and who is already producing working
>> software, more advanced that this project at this time, and g
Am 07/11/2011 05:18 PM, schrieb Andy Brown:
Kay Schenk wrote:
On 07/11/2011 04:06 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
The .org is and was always essential to the community.
Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum
Hi André
2011/7/11 Andre Schnabel :
> Hi,
>
[...]
> So - if the Apache project does not want to use the brand "OpenOffice.org",
> maybe ask Oracle to hand it over to TDF instead.
>
+1 ;-)
> Ok, just joking - I would not expect this to happen.
>
> But anyway - everyone who would say "no" to the
Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 07/11/2011 04:06 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
The .org is and was always essential to the community.
>>> Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum who expresse
On 07/11/2011 04:06 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
The .org is and was always essential to the community.
Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum who expressed an opinion to me, no
one liked it. It was a perpe
efectural government's
offcial homepage.
http://www.pref.yamagata.jp/ou/somu/020051/openoffice_dounyu.html
[1] http://about.openoffice.org/#logo
[2]
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/JA/Marketing/Major_OpenOffice.org_Deployments
>From this thread "OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
On 11 Jul 2011, at 14:16, Andre Schnabel wrote:
> So - if the Apache project does not want to use the brand "OpenOffice.org",
> maybe ask Oracle to hand it over to TDF instead.
>
> Ok, just joking - I would not expect this to happen.
More than that, as far as I can tell TDF are perfectly happy
--- En date de : Lun 11.7.11, Graham Lauder a écrit :
> [...]
> I'm just mindful that change for change sake is not
> a reason to dump an established brand and
> in fact change in the rest of the infrastructure is an
> excellent reason
> for retention and strengthening of that
> brand
> [...]
Hi,
> Von: Javier Sola
>
> This product competes with another one whose main disadvantage is not
> having the name OpenOffice.org, and who is already producing working
> software, more advanced that this project at this time, and getting the
> favor of some distributions.
So - if the Apache
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 07:36 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> > As Peter Junge has stated, this discussion has a repetitive deja vu feel
> > about it.
> >
>
> It would only be repetitive if circumstances were the same. They
> aren't. Perhaps the full magnitude of this has not hit, but things
> are very di
I agree with this.
This product competes with another one whose main disadvantage is not
having the name OpenOffice.org, and who is already producing working
software, more advanced that this project at this time, and getting the
favor of some distributions.
I work with both projects, and at
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
>>
>> On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The .org is and was always essential to the community.
>> >
>> Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum who expressed an opinion to me,
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 08:34 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>
> But seriously, the ".org" was added to make the name unique. It also
> occurred during the .com bubble when making your product sound
> internetty would make your stock price quadruple over night. So we
> ended up with a lot of silly names
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
>
> On 09/07/11 07:58, eric b wrote:
> >
> >
> > The .org is and was always essential to the community.
> >
> Why? Out of the folk on the OOo forum who expressed an opinion to me, no
> one liked it. It was a perpetual reminder that the product
Gavin McDonald wrote:
Ok, the URL can be anything that starts off with blogs.apache.org/
So that can be
blogs.apache.org/ooo
blogs.apache.org/openoffice
blogs.apache.org/openofficeorg
(no dots or caps in the url Im afraid)
For the blog url I would choose one of the longer speaking versio
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 14:19, Donald Harbison
> wrote:
> > No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
> > prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
> > Let's simply use Apache OpenOf
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 14:19, Donald Harbison wrote:
> No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
> prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
> Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
Agreed. The ".org" is an anachronism from a long time ago
Original Message
From: Kai Ahrens
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 23:21:35 +0200
> Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>> No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
>> prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of recor
Am 11.07.2011 01:51, schrieb Dave Fisher:
> The domain openoffice.org will certainly be transferred to the ASF and the
> ASF will host the website. There may be some subdomains that are externally
> hosted. (external to the ASF.) as part of an overall openoffice.org
> community. The trademark wi
The domain openoffice.org will certainly be transferred to the ASF and the ASF
will host the website. There may be some subdomains that are externally hosted.
(external to the ASF.) as part of an overall openoffice.org community. The
trademark will still belong to the Apache Software Foundation.
Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:
> No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
> prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
> Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
I might be totally wrong (especially as I'm not a lawyer) but ther
On 10 July 2011 22:21, Kai Ahrens wrote:
> Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:
> > No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
> > prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
> > Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
>
> +1
>
Ok, +1
On 2011-07-10, at 17:21 , Kai Ahrens wrote:
> Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>> No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
>> prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
>> Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
>
> +1
>
> Reg
Am 10.07.2011 20:19, schrieb Donald Harbison:
> No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
> prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
> Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
+1
Regards
Kai
> http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-family710
>
>
> "Open Office" is an international trademark of a Ubuntu business.
No, they are as bad in their IP review as Sun and Oracle were in protecting and
correctly using their trademark.
--
Pavel Janík
2011/7/10 Pavel Janík
>
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> > OpenOffice.org would make a good name for a new non-profit umbrella
> > organisation co-ordinating the interests of Apache OpenOffice,
> LibreOffice
> > and the proprietary downstreams they support...
> >
> > Just sa
On 10/07/11 19:19, Donald Harbison wrote:
No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
+1.
On Jul 10, 2011 1:27 PM, "Marcus (OOo)" wrote:
OK, to let the nam
On Jul 10, 2011, at 8:22 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> OpenOffice.org would make a good name for a new non-profit umbrella
> organisation co-ordinating the interests of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice
> and the proprietary downstreams they support...
>
> Just sayin'
Yes. And I think there is nothing
OpenOffice.org would make a good name for a new non-profit umbrella
organisation co-ordinating the interests of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice
and the proprietary downstreams they support...
Just sayin'
S.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Donald Harbison wrote:
> No need to drag the .org into
No need to drag the .org into the future, if Apache is prefixed. If no
prefix, yes, we lead with the trademark of record: OpenOffice.org. IMHO.
Let's simply use Apache OpenOffice.
On Jul 10, 2011 1:27 PM, "Marcus (OOo)" wrote:
> OK, to let the name start with "Apache" seems to be a requirement.
>
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Marcus (OOo) wrote:
> OK, to let the name start with "Apache" seems to be a requirement.
>
> Am I right when I see more people saying that it should be named "Apache
> OpenOffice.org" and not "Apache OpenOffice"?
>
Please let's keep OpenOffice.org. This would be
OK, to let the name start with "Apache" seems to be a requirement.
Am I right when I see more people saying that it should be named "Apache
OpenOffice.org" and not "Apache OpenOffice"?
BTW:
I don't want to get rid of the ".org" extension on any price. Due to the
new Apache home I just wanted
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Ivo Hinkelmann wrote:
> > I would also prefer that we just called it "OpenOffice.org". This brand
> > is known everywhere and this is not a fork but the moved "original" OOo
> > project.
>
> Same for me. This Apache podling has many nice fea
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
