[libreoffice-website] Re: [libreoffice-projects] LibreOffice Extensions Test Website
On 07/02/2015 08:34 PM, Andreas Mantke wrote: I'm looking for your feedback. a) Can you create a category for Colour Palettes, Hatching Palettes, and the rest of the objects that live in ~/config. This is for extensions such as Parabolic Colour Palette. (I thought that there was one that included Pantone Colours, but that might be in the AOO repository.) b) Is the new configuration going to include, or exclude extensions that have no release: * Chinese Punctuation TW (http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/add-chinese-punctuation-marks-toolbar-for-writer) is one example. * http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/libreoffice-getrest-plugin is another example, albeit source code is offered. jonathon -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: website+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-website] extension site
I have no idea who wrote what, so I'm not attributing anything to anybody: > Maybe all extensions that aren't tested Who is going to do the testing? It takes me at least 15 minutes to test an extension, if I know how it is supposed to work, and have the appropriate locale installed. If I don't know how the functionality provided by the extension is supposed to work, testing can take hours. A successful install of an extension does not mean that it works as advertised. >with the latest four main releases should be hidden Whilst not quite as true today, as it has been in the past, extensions for LibreOffice do work in EuroOffice, Apache OpenOffice, and NeoOffice. As such, an extension that doesn't work with LibO 5.x might still be fully functional for EU or AOo. Furthermore, there are use cases where the only viable solution is an older of LibreOffice. (Typically, this has been when required functionality has been removed from LibO.) Thus, rather than hide the extension, have an "Obsolete" selection, which displays only extensions that are not functional for the last four LibO releases. > or (much better) removed from the site. Some of those extensions are distributed under an open source license. As such, it is possible for someone other than original developer to update them --- if they know about them. > If they are not tested on newer LibreOffice versions the user is: > a) will be left on his own (no support from the extension developer and the > project) I won't say that support from developers is never available, but "Clipart gallery of danger signs" (http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/gallery-of-danger-signs) is typical, in that no information about the developer is available to those who are not logged in. (I'd log in, but the site claims my login name doesn't exist.) When information about a developer is available, it is as likely as not to be akin the screenshot provided by the developer of CalcLink: http://www.lauschkeconsulting.com/walkthrough.html. > b) will never find the extension, if he search for extensions that are compatible with one of the current LibreOffice versions. For example, KMLOOo. http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/kmlooo. jonathon -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: website+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-website] Devart
My recommendation would be to remove _all_ extensions provided by Devart from the LibreOffice Extension website, and permanently ban them from contributing anything to the project. I don't object to commercially distributed licenses. I don't object to developers that are selling Open Source Licensed product. I do, however, think that a company that claims to use OSI licenses, but whose license contains clauses such as the following is being, at best, intentionally deceptive: « 1.1. If you are a legally licensed user, depending on the license type specified in the registration letter you have received from Devart upon purchase of the Software: - the "Desktop License" allows you to install and use the Software on a single desktop computer, provided it is accessed by no more than one person at a time , either directly or remotely, for sole purposes only in accordance with this Agreement. If more than one person can simultaneously use the computer where you plan to install the product, you must purchase a Server License. A Desktop License is valid for one single desktop installation; - the "Server License" allows you to install and use the Software on a single server, provided it is accessed by more than one person at a time, either directly or remotely. This definition includes, but is not limited to, Web servers, application servers, batch servers, and desktop workstations, where more than one concurrent users can access the Software. A Server License is valid for one single server installation, provided it is used by 1 (one) legal entity in accordance with this Agreement. 1.2. If you are a legally licensed user of the Software, you are also entitled to: - make one copy of the Software for archival purposes only, or copy the Software onto the hard disk of your computer and retain the original for archival pur poses; - develop and test Applications with the Software, subject to the Limitations below. 1.3. You are allowed to use evaluation versions of the Software as specified in the Evaluation section. No other rights or privileges are granted in this Agreement. 2.1 You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. 2.2 You may not reproduce or distribute any Software documentation without express written permission from Devart. 2.3 You may not distribute and sell any portion of the Software integrating it into your Applications. 2.4 You may not transfer, assign, or modify the Software, in whole or in part. In particular, the Software license is non-transferable, and you may not transfer the installation package. » Here is a list of licenses approved the Open Source Initiative, Academic Free License 3.0 (AFL-3.0) Affero General Public License: See GNU Affero General Public License 3.0 (AGPL-3.0) Adaptive Public License (APL-1.0) Apache License 2.0 (Apache-2.0) Apple Public Source License (APSL-2.0) Artistic license 2.0 (Artistic-2.0) Attribution Assurance Licenses (AAL) BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License (BSD-3-Clause) BSD 2-Clause "Simplified" or "FreeBSD" License (BSD-2-Clause) Boost Software License (BSL-1.0) CeCILL License 2.1 (CECILL-2.1) Computer Associates Trusted Open Source License 1.1 (CATOSL-1.1) Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 (CDDL-1.0) Common Public Attribution License 1.0 (CPAL-1.0) CUA Office Public License Version 1.0 (CUA-OPL-1.0) EU DataGrid Software License (EUDatagrid) Eclipse Public License 1.0 (EPL-1.0) eCos License version 2.0 Educational Community License, Version 2.0 (ECL-2.0) Eiffel Forum License V2.0 (EFL-2.0) Entessa Public License (Entessa) European Union Public License, Version 1.1 (EUPL-1.1) (links to every language's version on their site) Fair License (Fair) Frameworx License (Frameworx-1.0) Free Public License 1.0.0 GNU Affero General Public License v3 (AGPL-3.0) GNU General Public License version 2.0 (GPL-2.0) GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPL-3.0) GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License version 2.1 (LGPL-2.1) GNU Library or "Lesser" General Public License version 3.0 (LGPL-3.0) Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer (HPND) IBM Public License 1.0 (IPL-1.0) IPA Font License (IPA) ISC License (ISC) LaTeX Project Public License 1.3c (LPPL-1.3c) Licence Libre du Québec – Permissive (LiLiQ-P) version 1.1 Licence Libre du Québec – Réciprocité (LiLiQ-R) version 1.1 Licence Libre du Québec – Réciprocité forte (LiLiQ-R+) version 1.1 Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (LPL-1.02) MirOS Licence (MirOS) Microsoft Public License (MS-PL) Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL) MIT license (MIT) Motosoto License (Motosoto) Mozilla Public License 2.0 (MPL-2.0) Multics License (Multics) NASA Open Source Agreement 1.3 (NASA-1.3) NTP License (NTP) Naumen Public License (Naumen) Nethack General Public License (NGPL) Nokia
[libreoffice-website] entry number 1474485942.490.173382459273.
Infrastructure Team: Posting here, because I'm being lazy, and not filing this on RedMine. This is really frustrating.Most of the time the steps described below result in an error message, but it works as expected frequently enough, that I still do it. I couldn't find anything at https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/1665 that matched, but I probably used the wrong keywords to search. For The error entry number 1474485942.490.173382459273. I did: Go to http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center Select "Newest" for the Sort On Field. Leave the item field blank; Leave "All Categories as is". Click on the Search Button; And saw that error message. Walking through it, whilst writing this email, I didn't get that error message. Instead, it displays what appears to be extensions in descending chronological order. This is not task # 1665 --- which occurs with both extensions and templates. https://redmine.documentfoundation.org/issues/1665 . jonathon -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: website+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[libreoffice-website] RE: Devart
Norbert wrote: >Done. these bogus 'extensions' are now removed Until you pointed it out, I didn't realize that nothing in the install directory was an OXT file. jonathon -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: website+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: Devart
On 17/08/2016 22:45, m.a.riosv wrote: > I informed also about this matter, end of July. > > http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Doubs-about-some-extensions-td4189260.html Thanks. I remembered reading emails about mislabelled extensions, but thought that they had been removed. jonathon -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: website+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.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.libreoffice.org/global/website/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-website] L.O. Templates and Extensions
On 13/11/2016 00:15, Tom wrote: > frustrating question that does NOT fit in any FAQ or other program type Help > areas! > I was very disappointed to find nothing but a few useless templates It is more than a little disconcerting to see the "Inglenook and TimeSaver Puzzle" at the top of the list, when selecting "All categories" sorted on "Most Downloaded". That template almost epitomises "useless template".(^1) >to me, and not even a very good letter template. I sympathise with your frustration in finding high quality templates. The received wisdom that it is both faster, and easier to create one from scratch, than hunting for something ready-made. Whilst I disagree with that received wisdom, it is much easier to simply assume that said templates don't exist in the ODF ecological system, than spend time hunting for them. By way of example, I spent between 40 and 80 hours scouring the Internet for Project Management templates, finding nothing that met all of my checkboxes. I ended up spending the best part of 400 hours, creating a set of 70 forms,(^2) using Cynthia Stackpole Snyder's _A Project Managers Book of Forms_. (John Wiley: 2013 ISBN 978-1-118-43078-1) as my primary template. I'm not happy with them, but intussen they will do. Furthermore, as I use them, I'll make the adjustments that they need. > anything later than Version 4 of Writer for example. And even less for Calc. Several things are at play: * Creating templates that work with older versions of LibO; * Creating templates that work with AnOO, AOo, EO, NO, etc; * Complaints by MSO users, that the template doesn't work with their software (^3); I create templates with LibO, but test them with AOo, and EO on Android. Those I've uploaded to the LibO Template Repository have been tagged with LibO 3.3 through 5.1, or 5.2. This cross-program/old version capability doesn't mean that the templates don't use things like Classification. Rather, it means that if it fails in not-the-bleeding-edge of LibO, it does so gracefully, and remains functional. > So my next trip was to OpenOffice.org to see if their templates Their template repository has become an even bigger haven of spammers, than LibO's template repository. > with a full and expansive list of templates including all the ones I > wanted and needed for Writer and Calc, my major interest. Sounds like what you want is https://sourceforge.net/projects/ooop/files/Extension/2.6.0.2/OOOP-templates-nonfree-unified-en-US-2.6.0.2.oxt/download and https://sourceforge.net/projects/ooop/files/Extension/2.6.0.2/OOOP-templates-separated-all-2.6.0.2.oxt/download or, maybe something else from https://sourceforge.net/projects/ooop/files/Extension/2.6.0.2/ This underscores something easily missed. Templates can be found in the extension repository, because the creator decided it was easier to bundle umpteen templates together, than individually describe them. >Not even a good #10 business envelope template existed! ">New >Labels" Something that is neither intuitive, nor documented. > The same basic experience was had with Extensions also. > time spend some time creating Templates at least, The major issues I've seen, with "template hackathons" are: * Potential copyright infringement; * Pump and dump; Whether or not templates legally qualify for copyright protection, is up to the local judiciary to determine. I'm fairly confident that The Document Foundation has better things to do with its money, then test legal theories in courts in either the United States, or Germany. "Pump and dump", even when from legal sources, generally produces low quality work product, which nobody cleans up, and polishes into a high quality work product. One potential solution to the apparent lack of templates might be: * Grab all of the templates at https://sourceforge.net/projects/ooop/; * Do due diligence on each template; * Add Dublin Core Meta Data to each template; * Modify each template to current LibO template criteria; * Upload the cleaned up template to the LibO repository; > I suggest starting with: Whilst this list of what is needed, is a useful starting point for anybody who wants to volunteer their services in creating the templates, twould be a better use of the project's limited resources, if that volunteer instead wrote documentation, explaining how to access, and use the templates that are included with LibO, that are on that list. ^1: Does sort by "Most Downloaded" really do so? For both the developer, and potential user, seeing actual download numbers can be useful. This specific template (Inglenook.1-8-8.ots) serves a niche audience: Model railroaders that are looking for an easy way to generate random consists. The secondary audience is no bigger, especially since it is barely hinted at, in the documentation that comes in the template. ^2: The only feedback on my templates at http://templates.libreoffice.org/template-center, has been from MSO users, complaining that the
