incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: selling open office
Date Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:12:50 GMT
Hi Rob,

Good questions. I'll play. You are seeking the boundary of what is permissible to be called
AOO, powered by AOO and not permitted. Possible answers below:

On Feb 29, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Rob Weir wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Pedro Giffuni <> wrote:
>> FWIW;
>> 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"?

Since source releases are required for all projects then I think that this would need to be
Apache OpenOffice. Should we distinguish binaries not made by the PPMC as Apache OpenOffice
for Foo or is it Foo Office powered by Apache OpenOffice?  It is probably better for the brand
if it is AOO for Foo or AOO, Foo edition.

> 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?

No way, it is not an approved source code release. You may be able to say "Powered by" or
"Built with" if desired, but it is not required.

> 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"?

No, it is not an official release. You can call it Symphony or LibreOffice, whatever, but
it is not AOO until the patches are taken in and released.

> 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
> OpenOffice"?

No. It is not a release.

> 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"?

Yes, perhaps AOO, Mongolian Edition.

> 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?

Yes, perhaps AOO, Mongolian Edition.

> 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?

Yes and yes as long as trademark rules are followed including full and clear disclosure that
the support services and cost are not in any way related by Apache OpenOffice.

> It is cases like this that we need to think about and develop some
> rational way of deciding:
> A) What cases are always allowed?

(5), (6) and (7). 

> B) What cases are always forbidden?

(2), (3) and (4).

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

(1) maybe, but maybe it is (A). In this case I think that the developer would want to engage
the project.


>> Pedro.

View raw message