incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:33:57 GMT
On 1/4/12 9:03 AM, eric b wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> Le 4 janv. 12 à 02:24, Rob Weir a écrit :
>> Note that this does not become your product's name. It is a logo, like
>> "Intel Inside", that can be used by 3rd party products that include or
>> are based on an Apache product.
> This point is ESSENTIAL, and imho, only official Apache
> websites should use the logo.
> Though, if 3rd party product want to mention they are based on Apache
> product, then they can write it, and why not, add the apache logo. But
> not the one.
>> So it allows you to grow your own brand while accurately expressing
>> your use of the Apache code. We'd need to think how this could work
>> with products based on legacy OOo releases, pre Apache.
> This is a bad track. Indeed, people are already completly confused.
> At one recent event, I discussed with some around 20 average french
> people (randomly, average users, not following story),
> and the result is :
> - Oracle is the current owner
> - is no longer free and Oracle killed it
> - LibreOffie is the new name of
> - Apache OpenOffice is yet another fork, nobody knows and nobody cares.
> It took me a long time to explain them what happened in meantime.

i made similar experience but not exactly the same.

- many people thought was killed by Oracle
- many see LibreOffice as fork but the one that currently is alive and 
that does strong promotion and is well established as default on the 
Linux distros (where it is simply the replacement of a former fork)
- Apache OpenOffice is not well known and many people don't know the 
relation between and Apache. -> it's our job to change 
this ;-)

> I invite everybody to repeat the test, and share what they obtain.
>> But I think something similar could be discussed.
>> If we wanted, we could also include a link on the main download page,
>> pointing too White Label Office, but we'd need to be fair and offer
>> the same kind of link to anyone else who was based on OOo, and who was
>> respecting the trademarks, e.g., LibreOffice, Symphony, etc.
> IMHO, the right decision is to NOT add external links at all : easy to
> manage, and always fair for all.
> To justify this point of view, I got one famous example in mind : one
> NeoOffice link was added (Simon Phipps around already ...) on the main
> porting project web page. It was a disaster for
> because people were confused, and thought NeoOffice was
> the "official" Mac OS X port. This way, NeoOffice derivated a long time
> the porting project forces, including donations who were derivated too.
> The case is exactly the same with LibreOffice today, and I strongly
> suggest to retain the lesson of the past, and to not redo the same mistake.
> Defend the name, and control the logo usage, is ESSENTIAL. Just
> wondering how long it will take to the Apache people, to understand that
> it was the worse decision ever to rename** into Apache
> OpenOffice (instead of Apache, far better).

i am not sure and I hope we can transport the message of the new name. 
When i voted for the change i thought I would have voted for the change 
of the project name only (my mistake) and not the product name. We will 
see, a good promotion and communication work in the public is necessary 

But we will keep as the main entry portal page to our 

We still have to answer many questions related the change of the product 

- name of the installation directory and user directory
- name of the tooltip (e.g. mouse over the icon in the dock on a MacOS 
- menu entries or application name in the different systems
- registry entries on a windows system
- ...

For most of these question i would recommend to keep at 
least for AOO 3.4.


View raw message