On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org > wrote:
> > [Not cross-posting to private@.] > > -- replying to -- > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 10:20 > To: OOo Apache > Cc: dennis.hamil...@acm.org; privateAOO > Subject: Re: Deflecting the Attack of the Clones > > On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 10:17 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 21, 2014, Dennis E. Hamilton < > dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > > wrote: > > > > > -- in reply to -- > > > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org <javascript:;>] > > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 13:37 > > > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org <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" -- > http://www.openoffice.org/porting/ > > 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 -- > > http://www.openoffice.org/distribution/ > > But...they should identify that their product is Apache OpenOffice. > > [ ... ] > > <orcmid> > This page, > <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andropenoffice> > 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: > <https://sites.google.com/site/andropenoffice/home>. 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 andreopenoffice.com in all of its material, > <http://andropenoffice.com> doesn't serve up anything at the moment. > Right on all counts! This last item was particularly confusing to me, as it seems that what's in google play is very different from andropenoffice.com. > > Here is a typical example of confusion about this product, > < > https://www.marshut.net/pyzxp/aoo-for-android-not-worth-the-download.html > >. > 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 > reputation. > </orcmid> > Yes, the words "fork" and "port" were used and they are not really the same. . I think contacting the vendor re the distinction between these two terms might solve this problem. We will investigate the support item as well. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK "There's a bit of magic in everything, and some loss to even things out." -- Lou Reed
