openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones
Date Tue, 23 Dec 2014 23:00:46 GMT

[Not cross-posting to private@.]

 -- replying to --
From: Kay Schenk [] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:20
To: OOo Apache
Cc:; privateAOO
Subject: Re: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:17 AM, jan i <> wrote:

> On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> wrote:
> >  -- in reply to --
> > From: Andrea Pescetti [ <javascript:;>]
> > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 13:37
> > To: <javascript:;>
> > Subject: Re: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones
[ ... ]
> > We are in good relationship with the author. The current branding and
> > wording of "AndrOpen Office" were approved by the OpenOffice PMC. If any
> > changes are needed, feel free to suggest them. It is an unofficial port,
> > but it is also as close as possible to OpenOffice.
> >
> >
> > <orcnote>
> >     My correspondent notices that there are appropriate disclaimers
> >     on the AndrOpen Office "AOO" web page.
> >
> >     In a follow-up sent to me, I am told that the installed software
> >     identifies itself as Apache OpenOffice and all of the branding of
> >     Apache OpenOffice is present.
> >
> >     I think it is important that a fork *not* do that, and that such
> >     identifications, including any links to support addresses and
> >     for pinging updates be corrected.  (I don't have an answer for
> >     the on-line help or identification of AndrOpen-specific topics
> >     on the OpenOffice Forums.)
> > </orcnote>

Currently we have AndrOffice listed as a "port" --

What this means to me is the 3rd party MUST identify itself as Apache
OpenOffice. This is different than a fork.

So, they SHOULD NOT re-brand. This goes against our trademark policy.

See our distribution page --

But...they should identify that their product is Apache OpenOffice.

[ ... ]

   This page, 
   specifically identifies the product as a *fork* of *Apache OpenOffice*
   and it disavows any association with Apache OpenOffice or LibreOffice 
   projects.  It claims to be the world's first *port* of *OpenOffice*.

   The same confusion arises here: 
   <>.  There is a 
   separate source code for a few parts, not under ALv2 (MPL or LGPL), 
   apparently for some externals.  There is a link for a blog.

   Although Google Play lists in all of its material,
   <> doesn't serve up anything at the moment.  

   Here is a typical example of confusion about this product, 
   Notice "Apache's Open Office for Android."  And folks speak of AOO for 
   Android as if it is the AOO known to us.

   I think the distinction between a port and a fork is lost here and too fine
   hair-splitting to be useful.  If the Apache OpenOffice project is willing 
   to handle support requests for such a product, so be it.  Enjoy the 

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message