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
On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 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
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 13 Jul 2011, at 14:29, Sam Ruby wrote:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote:
On 13 Jul 2011, at 12:55, Sam Ruby wrote:
If a project decides to create a canonical place to find things
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
2011/7/12 Pavel Janík pa...@janik.cz
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
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
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 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 domain
] 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, Gavin McDonald ga...@16degrees.com.au
wrote:
-Original Message-
From
-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)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Gavin McDonald
ga...@16degrees.com.auwrote:
You misunderstood,
the project name becomes the subdomain name associated with the
website
there is no project called ‘ooo’ so ‘ooo.apache.org
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 being
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
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauder yori...@openoffice.org 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
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
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
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
Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauderyori...@openoffice.org 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
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. Then we can
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
Lauderyori...@openoffice.org 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
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
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
Am 07/12/2011 01:41 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Graham Lauderyori...@openoffice.org
wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 20:21 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Javier Sola wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at
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 and/or
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 that
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 other
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 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.
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:41 AM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com 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
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 interests in
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
deeply involved people
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net 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 makes a
Yes, exactly!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 12, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net 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,
-
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, however, so I intend
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, however, so I intend to stay neutral on how this
gets thrashed out.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Carl Marcum [mailto:cmar...@apache.org
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
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net 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
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,
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
snip
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
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Graham Lauder yori...@openoffice.org wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
snip
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
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 different
Hi,
Von: Javier Sola li...@khmeros.info
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 -
--- En date de : Lun 11.7.11, Graham Lauder yori...@openoffice.org 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
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 with
.
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) I don't see
reasons why .org should be dropped
On 07/11/2011 04:06 AM, Graham Lauder wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-09 at 11:12 +0100, David McKay wrote:
snip
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
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:
snip
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
Hi André
2011/7/11 Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
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
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:
snip
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
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
Von: Javier Sola li...@khmeros.info
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
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Andre Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net
wrote:
Hi,
Von: Javier Sola li...@khmeros.info
This product competes with another one whose main disadvantage is not
having the name
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 -
2011/7/11 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
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
On 11 July 2011 17:58, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote:
2011/7/11 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
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
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
2011/7/11 Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com:
2011/7/11 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
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
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Manfred A. Reiter ma.rei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/11 Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com:
2011/7/11 André Schnabel andre.schna...@gmx.net:
Hi,
Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
From a branding perspective you did have the opportunity to start
fresh, but you
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.namewrote:
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
On Jul 11, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Danese Cooper wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Daniel Shahaf
d...@daniel.shahaf.namewrote:
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
On 07/11/2011 10:37 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Manfred A. Reiterma.rei...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/7/11 Rob Weirapa...@robweir.com:
2011/7/11 André Schnabelandre.schna...@gmx.net:
Hi,
Am 11.07.2011 18:39, schrieb Rob Weir:
From a branding perspective you did
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
tbd.apache.org where the
@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 to get
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 to talk
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de 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.
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) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
OK, to let the name start with Apache seems to be
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 dpharbi...@gmail.comwrote:
No need to
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
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)marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote:
2011/7/10 Pavel Janík pa...@janik.cz
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
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
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
Regards
Kai
On 10 July 2011 22:21, Kai Ahrens kahr...@apache.org 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
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
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 will
Original Message
From: Kai Ahrens kahr...@apache.org
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
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 14:19, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Greg Stein gst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 14:19, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com
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.
Hi,
Le 9 juil. 11 à 09:17, Gavin McDonald a écrit :
Isn't blogs.apache.org/openoffice.org possible ?
Nope
Why ? Sorry, I don't understand.
Regards,
Eric Bachard
--
qɔᴉɹə
Education Project:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Education_Project
Projet OOo4Kids :
-Original Message-
From: eric b [mailto:eric.bach...@free.fr]
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2011 5:25 PM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
Hi,
Le 9 juil. 11 à 09:17, Gavin McDonald a écrit :
Isn't blogs.apache.org/openoffice.org
-Original Message-
From: eric b [mailto:eric.bach...@free.fr]
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2011 5:57 PM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
Hi,
Le 9 juil. 11 à 09:48, Gavin McDonald a écrit :
Isn't blogs.apache.org/openoffice.org
-Original Message-
From: Dave Fisher [mailto:dave2w...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, 9 July 2011 6:04 PM
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org (was Re: Ooo blog)
I think it is a limitation to the the blog software - Apache Roller.
Thanks Dave, I thought
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 couldn't be called
what they really wanted it to be called: OpenOffice. I greatly prefer Apache
OpenOffice to Apache OpenOffice.org.
The product and the
On 09/07/11 12:21, Pavel Janík wrote:
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 couldn't be called what
they really wanted it to be called: OpenOffice. I greatly prefer Apache
OpenOffice to Apache
+1
What is the blocker for simply starting to use 'Apache OpenOffice' as the
name? A recommendation would be to simply use 'Apache' as prefix to
'OpenOffice' in all instances, and simply drop the '.org' as unnecessary
clutter?
Shane, do you see any problems with this approach?
/don
2011/7/9
My preference has nothing to do with blogs, it is purely a naming and
branding issue. Formally, OpenOffice.org was always written as
OpenOffice.org by those who knew, but colloquially/informally it was
always talked about as OpenOffice. I agree we need to maintain ties with
the legacy and
On 09.07.2011 20:02, David McKay wrote:
My preference has nothing to do with blogs, it is purely a naming and
branding issue. Formally, OpenOffice.org was always written as
OpenOffice.org by those who knew, but colloquially/informally it was
always talked about as OpenOffice. I agree we need to
2011/7/9 Pavel Janík pa...@janik.cz:
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 couldn't be called
what they really wanted it to be called: OpenOffice. I greatly prefer Apache
OpenOffice to Apache
On 09/07/11 13:24, Peter Junge wrote:
On 09.07.2011 20:02, David McKay wrote:
My preference has nothing to do with blogs, it is purely a naming and
branding issue. Formally, OpenOffice.org was always written as
OpenOffice.org by those who knew, but colloquially/informally it was
always talked
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:34 AM, David McKay dmc...@btconnect.com wrote:
On 09/07/11 13:24, Peter Junge wrote:
On 09.07.2011 20:02, David McKay wrote:
My preference has nothing to do with blogs, it is purely a naming and
branding issue. Formally, OpenOffice.org was always written as
On 09.07.2011 20:34, David McKay wrote:
On 09/07/11 13:24, Peter Junge wrote:
On 09.07.2011 20:02, David McKay wrote:
My preference has nothing to do with blogs, it is purely a naming and
branding issue. Formally, OpenOffice.org was always written as
OpenOffice.org by those who knew, but
On 09.07.2011 13:55, Javier Sola wrote:
Why does the name need to be changed? Is there any value in adding
Apache to the name?
I really think that the name is one of the most important assets of
the project at this time.
[snip]
+1
I would also prefer that we just called it
Hi Javier, Ivo, *,
Am 09.07.2011 16:31 schrieb Ivo Hinkelmann i...@apache.org:
On 09.07.2011 13:55, Javier Sola wrote:
Why does the name need to be changed? Is there any value in adding
Apache to the name?
I really think that the name is one of the most important assets of the
project at
+1
On Jul 9, 2011, at 4:52 AM, Donald Harbison dpharbi...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
What is the blocker for simply starting to use 'Apache OpenOffice' as the
name? A recommendation would be to simply use 'Apache' as prefix to
'OpenOffice' in all instances, and simply drop the '.org' as
2011/7/9 Pavel Janík pa...@janik.cz
On Jul 9, 2011, at 2:24 PM, Peter Junge wrote:
As to the differentiation of OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice.org, I
would propose to use the latter for the project and the community now, but
keeping the former for the branding of the product.
2011/7/9 Peter Junge peter.ju...@gmx.org:
On 09.07.2011 23:34, Danese Cooper wrote:
If you want a legal opinion, please forward a request to
legal-disc...@apache.org
No, I don't need a legal opinion because I'm not wanting to remove the
.org.
I believe you want that,
because you know
Hi,
Le 9 juil. 11 à 14:24, Peter Junge a écrit :
As to the differentiation of OpenOffice.org and Apache
OpenOffice.org, I would propose to use the latter for the project
and the community now, but keeping the former for the branding of
the product.
Thanks Peter, thats a very good
On 9 July 2011 17:05, eric b eric.bach...@free.fr wrote:
Hi,
Le 9 juil. 11 à 14:24, Peter Junge a écrit :
As to the differentiation of OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice.org, I
would propose to use the latter for the project and the community now, but
keeping the former for the branding
We'll need to bring this up with Apache branding. The Apache Project
Branding Requirements are listed here:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs.html#naming
The requirement is for the product to be called Apache Foo, such as
Apache OpenOffice.org or (my preference) Apache OpenOffice.
I
And hey... wouldn't you know it... one of our mentors (Shane) is the VP of
Branding.
On Jul 9, 2011 1:01 PM, Rob Weir apa...@robweir.com wrote:
We'll need to bring this up with Apache branding. The Apache Project
Branding Requirements are listed here:
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 features, but its most
distinctive ones are:
- Participation of many
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@openoffice.orgwrote:
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
It isn't just a matter of who gets more hits on Google. In 2000, the OpenOffice
name was not trademarkable worldwide (and probably still is not) without the
.org. OTOH, the ASF doesn't normally seek to register all it's trademarks
worldwide because of cost (in the US, first use of a mark is
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
