incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Mon, 11 Jul 2011 22:09:15 GMT

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 ".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.
>>> Regardless of the circumstances of your starting fresh, you opted for
>>> "LibreOffice" rather than "".  I was just wondering
>>> whether that was discussed at all.  And if so, why you decided not to
>>> go with a ".org" branding?
>> Sorry, i´m not able to follow such an line of argumentation. [1]
>> or do we start from scratch like LibreOffice?
> Let me break it down:
> 1) I'm hearing that the ".org" was critical to the OOo community,
> because it signified that this was a community not a ".com" commercial
> venture.  The ".org" was critical to that aspect of the branding and
> the entire community supported that.

Well...I could be totally off base here, but I *thought* the brand/name came into place initially because of the other 
trademark issue. THAT being the case, I *thought* the 
name was chosen for the product, AND, coincidentally the site (truly 
there was once an if memory serves) because of this.

OK, so that's what we had to deal with and thus, the name for the product.

Now, 10 yrs down the road, I KNOW a large portion of the Internet 
community refers to as "OpenOffice"-- in fact, perhaps 
the majority. Fine. This is, I guess, an accepted nickname.  I don't 
think anybody who has been involved in this project hates that term, 
it's just, well, not the "formal" name of the project or product as a 
lot of us  know it if you will. And, the marketing folk have done a LOT 
of work at making "" a recognizable brand.

> 2) But then when a sizeable portion of that community split off and
> formed LibreOffice, in part to have it be even more community-led,
> they didn't adopt that part of the branding.

I don't see what bearing this has on this discussion. This was LO's 
decision for whatever reason.

> So these two facts appear to be in conflict. I was trying to ascertain
> whether the TDF/LO guys concerned and rejected it for
> some reason, or whether it was never seriously concerned.  Remember,
> the LO guys are not all that different than the Apache OpenOffice
> guys.  They lived through the same history and saw the same marketing
> campaigns, etc., wrt  But when they moved to a new
> location, they did not adopt a  ".org" name.
> I understand perfectly the historical reasons why the name
> was chosen.  And I can understand the reasons why we
> don't want to changing branding frequently and with no good reason.

Well this puts a lot of minds at ease. :)

> Regards,
> -Rob
>> [1]


"An old horse for a long hard road, a young pony for a quick ride".
                                   -- Unknown

View raw message