On Jan 22, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt
> wrote:
>> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Saransh Sharma wrote:
> Is there any difference in OOO and AOO
>
It was a product renaming. OpenOffice.org was the name used from
2000, when Sun initially made their StarOffice (acquired from
StarDivision) product open source, until around December 2011 when we
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
>> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
>> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a H
On 1/22/13 3:59 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
I hope not because AOO is OOO and even if
Is there any difference in OOO and AOO
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
> own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
> own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History
There was talk in the Talk of splitting the article, giving AOO its
own page and putting the project, along with its drama recap, on its
own. Maybe rather than an OO page, there can be a History of OO page?
Though if there isn't an OO page it might start a redirect war...
Don
On Mon, Jan 21, 20
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Don
> Thanks
> Inline...
>
>
> Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
>> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
>> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but
Don
Thanks
Inline...
Donald Whytock wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts of interes
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Donald Whytock wrote:
> Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
> object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
> finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
> argument.
>
> Regarding conflicts
Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as
finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
argument.
Regarding conflicts of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simp
Rob Weir wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>> > is something we can do.
>> >
>
> So what can you d
put
a flag on the play.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 19:24
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; lo...@apache.org
Subject: Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
over the holidays
[ ..
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> wrote:
>>> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag,
>>> because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion
>>> piece in th
Rob Weir wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
> wrote:
>> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag,
>> because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion
>> piece in the ways Rob has noticed.
Agreed. My thanks to you and Rob. How very
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag, because
> there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion piece in the ways Rob
> has noticed.
>
> While browsing,
>
> In the prelude, the Apache License is des
I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag, because
there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion piece in the ways Rob
has noticed.
While browsing,
In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak copyleft
licenses. It is not, and weak copylef
16 matches
Mail list logo
