incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Not new but under a new hat
Date Wed, 28 Sep 2011 13:20:20 GMT
On 28 September 2011 13:45, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Thorsten Behrens
> <thb@documentfoundation.org> wrote:
> > J├╝rgen Schmidt wrote:
> >> > > It is still early enough to reunify the code base and use the well
> >> > > known brand OpenOffice for a binary release. It would be the best
> >> > > choice for our users.
> >> > >
> >> > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but binary releases bearing that
> >> > name can only be made by the ASF, or can they?
> >> >
> >>
> >> how are other Apache projects find there way in a Linux distro? For AOO
> it
> >> can be probably handled in the same way.
> >>
> > There's precious little Apache projects with gui, and splash screen
> > FWIW - reading http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ again, it's
> > very unlikely that anyone but Apache can publish OOo-branded
> > binaries, and/or make material additions to an official tarball
> > release. So "reunify as OOo" sounds very much like a non-starter to
> > me.
> >
>
> If you have a specific proposal for use of Apache-owned trademarks,
> then you are welcome to submit it to this list.  We can then review,
> discuss and make a recommendation to Apache branding.
>

Yes it is straightforward, I have been through the process so I can vouch
for it from first hand experience.

>
> But I think reunification is more than brand reunification.  Simply
> renaming LO to OOo would only confuse the users, since the products
> differ in features and quality.


Which is why I suggested LibO on Linux and AOO on Windows and Mac. Google
has different brand names for Chrome on Windows and Linux.


>  Before we think of brand concerns, I
> think we first need progress on community, license and code, first at
> the level of greater collaboration, then greater compatibility, then
> maybe reunification.
>

The thing that matters is reunification of a core of code that makes more
efficient use of the developer resources for both communities. It seems to
me that there is a logic in relating the licensing to proprietary platforms
like Windows and Mac and Open Source like Linux. So if TDF focussed its
resources on fantastic builds for Linux and perhaps Android and ASF on
Windows and Mac it immediately makes things more manageable. There can be
common contributions to core code like libraries at Apache under the ASF
license which then come down to LGPL in any case. It would make it possible
to manage resources optimally within the constraint of having two distinct
communities. Names and branding can be sorted out if there is a political
will to share and optimise  development. I would say that the primary goal
is to further odf as the universal standard. That will be best achieved by
combining development resources not fragmenting them. We should put politics
aside and work out how to best achieve the primary goal with the available
resources.  Find the reasons why we can make it work, not all the reasons it
won't work.

-- 
Ian

Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)

www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940

The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message