openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?
Date Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:11:13 GMT
I think something important is being overlooked in the position about release 
using the name.

There is clear interest in having a maintenance release.  It might not even be 
technically difficult.  Wanting to also fold it into the 
release lineage is the problem.

An 3.3.1 maintenance release is *not* going to be an Apache 
release, and not using any Apache code or licenses, I surmise.  It will be on 
the 3.3 code base that is available under LGPL.  So it is a 
derivative work, but not of Apache-licensed code.

In some sense, that is even more reason, under normal conditions, to deny 
identification of that maintenance result with the name.

The tension is that it is closer to an 3.3 maintenance release 
than anything that will ever appear as Apache OpenOffice version-whatever. 
And more timely.  The question is under what conditions can this be allowed to 
be identified as part of an 3.3.x progression?

 - Dennis


It seems to me that it is more straightforward to consider that the line has ended.  The only thing possible, now, are derivatives 
of the LGPL code base (such as LibreOffice is already), other 
existing peers of, and the reset that Apache OpenOffice 
represents (and its eventual derivatives too).

In that regard, it would be more appropriate for the proposed 3.3.1 
maintenance release to be identified as a derivative (e.g., Team OpenOffice 
3.3.1).  It can make nominative use of in regard to it being a 
maintenance derivative of 3.3 and that aspect is settled. 
Other trademark issues can be resolved with Team OpenOffice and, meanwhile, 
the derivative can be a clean release with splash screens, About dialogs, and 
other insignia that do not employ Apache trademarks and symbols in any way 
beyond non-confusing nominative usage.  There is now no confusion about the 
roots of the release and its independence from Apache.

On the site, it should be possible to identify the existence of 
this derivative and link to a Team OpenOffice page that indicates its 
availability, solicits funds, or whatever, as a recognized peer.  It is 
possible to link to LibreOffice in the same manner, and also other members of lineage and, other support for the ODF document format as well. 
The emergence of Apache OpenOffice and the steps toward incubator releases can 
also be featured, obviously.

That, apart from complications concerning localizations and other downstream 
support of the 3.3.1 including user support and bug reporting against the 
release, would seem to be that.  There is also the LGPL requirement that the 
source code of the release be available.

I suspect that there is a desire for closer coupling than that.  The problem, 
of course, is that the Podling can do nothing with the 3.3 LGPL 
code base.  And my understanding is that binaries of such code shall not be 
distributed via Apache sites either. The Apache OpenOffice code base is not 
usable instead; it is not even being positioned for maintenance release of an 3.3.1 equivalent. Probably the only case would be the unlikely 
possibility of Oracle undertaking such a release (meaning that updates would 
all be under Oracle SCA though).

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Curcuru []
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 09:06
Subject: Re: Non-Apache maintenance release for OOo 3.3?

On 2011-11-18 11:16 AM, Stefan Taxhet wrote:
> Hi Don, all,
> Am 17.11.2011 15:34, schrieb Donald Harbison:
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Stefan Taxhet<> wrote:
>>> Am 17.11.2011 02:23, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>> What is your proposal for the name of your release? Please make a
>>> proposal
>> for what you wish to name your release.
> Rob described the two options very concise. The preference would be to
> release " 3.3.1" with consent of the home of development
> work for future releases.
The Apache Open Office PPMC is the only organization that should be
releasing a software product using just the name "".
Apache trademark policy is clear that third parties are *not* allowed to
use Apache brands in confusing or infringing manners on software products.

We offer broad guidelines for using a "Powered By" style of naming for
third party software products that are either built on top of, extend,
or otherwise use Apache code but add your own code to your product:

Note that we'd certainly consider permitting other phrases besides the
"Powered By" phrase, like "Built Using", etc. (but not "Distribution" or
"Release" or other similarly non-specific phrases).  This allows third
parties to create their own, independently branded products while still
allowing third parties to show the obvious relationship to the
underlying Apache product.


View raw message