Hi :) I am happy with not mentioning Star Office but i still think that not mentioning it misses an opportunity 1) to show how old and established LO really is 2) to show that forking can lead to success 3) that this latest break is not so unusual. Just as the break away from Star Office led OpenOffice into a new and far more powerful position it implies the LibreOffice will similarly be able to crank it up to the next level. It says that LibreOffice is likely to be to OpenOffice what OpenOffice was/is to Star Office. To infinity and beyond!! It shows the break in a far more positive way. However we definitely should not over-play it. A discrete mention of the name in a list, as in "TDF will protect past investments by building on the achievements of the first decade with OpenOffice.org (and Star Office before that), will encourage wide participation within the community, and will co-ordinate activity across the community."
However, as i said, i'm happy either way and more to the point it's not my decision. I guess the sentence scans better without it. Regards from Tom :) ________________________________ From: Marc Paré <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, 30 June, 2011 10:11:45 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-marketing] inconsistent boilerplate Le 2011-06-30 04:47, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > Hello, > > thanks for the feedback! > > I too share the view that mentioning StarOffice will unnecessarily > complicate things, so we should leave it out. Well, OK, I don't think we need to make a big case of it. One last remark though is that if we distance ourselves in this particular statement, then it becomes odd to me that we make reference to it when explaining the beginnings of the birth of LibreOffice. When asked about the origins of LibreOffice I explain the birth of LibreOffice startomg from StarOffice to OOo. I think that this approach has been used by many people. > Marc Paré wrote on 2011-06-24 23.48: > >> Should there also be mention of the type of licence we have adopted -- >> opensource copy-left -- . Do we need to define ourselves from the >> version of the ASF opensource licence? This may be important for people >> who are looking into what is the difference between the TDF/LibreOffice >> and ASF versions of their office suite. IMO, I think we need to make >> this clear and also link our licence to the appropriate full description >> on the FSF site. > I'd be careful here. Long-term, TDF might not only be about LibreOffice, > so I would not focus too much on one specific license, who knows what > happens. > > I'll like to repeat Christoph's latest proposal - everyone agrees we can > adopt this? I am OK with this. > == > The Document Foundation has the mission of facilitating the evolution of > the LibreOffice Community into a new, open, independent, and > meritocratic organization over the next few months. An independent > foundation is a better reflection of the values of our contributors, > users and supporters, and will enable a more effective, efficient and > transparent community. TDF will protect past investments by building on > the achievements of the first decade with OpenOffice.org, will encourage > wide participation within the community, and will co-ordinate activity > across the community. > == > > Thanks, > Florian > -- Marc Paré http://www.parEntreprise.com -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
