incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: (was Re: Ooo blog)
Date Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:34:23 GMT
2011/7/9 Pavel Janík <>:
>> 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
> The product and the project WAS If we want to change it, then why not
directly Apache Office?
> --

Or if everyone likes the ".org" we could call it  "("

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 back then.

Today, however, the original reason for adding the ".org" no longer
exists.  And instead of sounding cool, it sounds very retro, so very
2001.  On the other hand, we have a generation of pedants who enjoy
correcting users who almost always just call the product "OpenOffice",
oblivious any attempts to enlighten them about how some Dutch company
they never heard of was also called OpenOffice.  So regardless of what
we do, users will continue calling the product "OpenOffice".

You can reading the Apache requirements for product branding and
naming here:

Quoting from there:  "The primary branding for any project or product
name must be in the form of 'Apache Foo'.  This ensures that the
project or product is associated with the ASF and the project in the
minds of our users. The first and most prominent reference to a
project or product on each page must use the 'Apache Foo' form of its
name. Other references may use either 'Apache Foo' or 'Foo' as
appropriate for the subject matter."

So the branding will need to include "Apache".  It seems the logical
choices are either:



"Apache OpenOffice"

Personally, I think the first name is ponderous and ugly.


> Pavel Janík

View raw message