incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: selling open office
Date Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:48:03 GMT
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
> On 02/29/12 07:54, Rob Weir wrote:
>> I don't see how this would have helped with Team OOo.  Surely, the
>> logo issue was only a small part of the problem, a very small part.
>> Even if we had a "powered by logo", there would have been the other
>> issues that were entirely irreconcilable with any reasonable Apache or
>> project trademark policy, such as the name of their organization and
>> the tenor of their fundraising efforts.  So not a very good example,
>> IMHO.
>> Maybe a better example would be the FreeBSD port?  That does not have
>> the extraneous issues that we had with TOO.
> For FreeBSD we will not be rebranding so the idea will be more
> in the lines of "Apache OpenOffice powered by FreeBSD" and
> not the other way around.

But the question is where do we draw the line?

At one pole, I think we all agree that released versions of AOO,
approved by the PMC and made available on the Apache mirrors,are
properly called "Apache OpenOffice".

I think also, that most of us agree that exactly copies (MD5 hashes
match, etc.) of these releases may also be referred to as Apache
OpenOffice, whether distributed via other websites, on CD's, even if
offered for sale.  This doesn't mean all cases are acceptable.  If I
form a company called "OpenOffice Direct" and sell CD's of AOO from my
website and use the AOO logo, then this is a problem.

But beyond literal copies, with MD5 hashes, matches, what else can be
called "Apache OpenOffice"?

For example:

1) I recompile AOO using a better optimizing compiler and release that
on my website.  Can I call it "Apache OpenOffice"?

2) I take the AOO source, but not from a release, but just a snapshot
from the project's SVN.  I think it is good enough for a release, even
though the PMC has not yet officially declared a release.  Can I build
it and call it Apache OpenOffice?

3) I take the AOO source, from a release, but then make additional
patches in it, to fix some bugs. Maybe these patches are also
contributed back to the AOO project.  Maybe the patches actually come
from the AOO project.  This is a common pattern for how a package
maintainer for a Linux distro might work.  Can they call such work
"Apache OpenOffice"?

4) I take the AOO source, from SVN, not from a release, and port it to
a different operating system.  My binaries were never signed off on my
the PMC.  The quality and the binaries might be different than the
quality of the PMC-approved releases. May I call my port "Apache

5) I take the AOO binary package, as released, and don't change any of
the compiled code.  But I do modify the install program to install
additional dictionaries, language packs, extensions, etc.  The core
code is identical.  I've only changed the install.  May I call this
"Apache OpenOffice"?

6) I take the AOO binary package and do not change it at all.  But I
write my own installer that invokes the AOO installer to install AOO,
and then installs additional dictionaries, language packs, extensions,
etc.  So the AOO binary package is unchanged, MD5 hashes match, etc.
Is this called "Apache OpenOffice + Foo"?  or what do we call it?

7) I am a PC distributor and I pre-install AOO on my PC's.  I use the
officially released binary packages from Apache, install them, and
then modify some of the default user preferences.  I also include some
additional plugins that connect the user to my subscription support
site.  May I say in my advertising that my PC's "Include Apache
OpenOffice(TM)"?  May I use the logo?

It is cases like this that we need to think about and develop some
rational way of deciding:

A) What cases are always allowed?

B) What cases are always forbidden?

C) What cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis?

> Pedro.

View raw message