Have a number of Fedora 41 machines, and am getting different
results from same command line.
use libreoffice --calc followed by 4 ods files.
On both machines, it does open all four files, but on the one
machine, it shows four tabs at top going across, and I can jump
between the spreadsheets by
On Thu, 24 May 2018 21:08:18 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 05/24/2018 07:13 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:25:56 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/24/2018 02:32 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> >>> I have a .docx document created using some sort of Word. The document has
>
On 05/24/2018 07:13 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:25:56 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 05/24/2018 02:32 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
I have a .docx document created using some sort of Word. The document has
drop-down as well as fill-in parts. I can edit these parts. However, I can
On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:25:56 -0700 Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 05/24/2018 02:32 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
> > I have a .docx document created using some sort of Word. The document has
> > drop-down as well as fill-in parts. I can edit these parts. However, I can
> > not edit the parts which are in t
On 05/24/2018 02:32 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
I have a .docx document created using some sort of Word. The document has
drop-down as well as fill-in parts. I can edit these parts. However, I can not
edit the parts which are in the form of a table. When I try to type something
in it, I get the f
Hi,
I have a .docx document created using some sort of Word. The document has
drop-down as well as fill-in parts. I can edit these parts. However, I can not
edit the parts which are in the form of a table. When I try to type something
in it, I get the following:
Write-protected content can not
> On 01/27/2011 01:52 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram
> wrote:
> >> I am well aware of all that but nothing you are
> saying contradicts what
> >> I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
> >
> > OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
> >
> > It was an e
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 13:55 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 01:52 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what
> >> I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
On 01/28/2011 12:22 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what
>> I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
> OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
>
> It was an error on my part, I often
On 01/27/2011 01:52 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what
>> I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
>
> OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
>
> It was an error on my part, I o
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I am well aware of all that but nothing you are saying contradicts what
> I said. Openoffice is not under the GPL license.
OpenOffice.org is LGPL.
It was an error on my part, I often use "GPL" as a generic term to
mean "GPL or LPGL" mean
On 01/27/2011 07:14 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Read carefully what you are quoting. The license is LGPL and not GPL
> Lesser GPL is what it implies.
>
> I take GPL and LGPL as part of the same family of licenses. ie GPL
> and LGPL have
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Read carefully what you are quoting. The license is LGPL and not GPL
Lesser GPL is what it implies.
I take GPL and LGPL as part of the same family of licenses. ie GPL
and LGPL have more in common than, say, the BSD license.
I don´t eve
On 01/27/2011 06:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
>> Generally, the GPL does not mandate giving anyone credit, in some particular
>> form or fashion.
> I wasn´t thinking of the legal angle. I was thinking about public
> discourse of portrayin
On 01/27/2011 06:48 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case,
>> different vendors have different considerations.
> Oh really?
Yes, really.
> http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
>
> Op
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case,
> different vendors have different considerations.
Oh really?
http://www.openoffice.org/license.html
OpenOffice.org uses a single open-source license for the source code
and
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Generally, the GPL does not mandate giving anyone credit, in some particular
> form or fashion.
I wasn´t thinking of the legal angle. I was thinking about public
discourse of portraying Oracle as some sort of enemies of open source,
and "
On 01/27/2011 05:18 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>
> All of that may very well be true, but isn't really a factor if an
> Oracle representative submits a package that says "this package
> contains GPLed code".
Openoffice.org codebase is not under GPL but even in that case,
different vendors have dif
On 01/27/2011 05:25 AM, Jim wrote:
> On 01/26/2011 06:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 01/27/2011 04:49 AM, Jim wrote:
>>> If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a
>>> search on libreoffice with no results.
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 07:01:26 pm Rahul Sundaram did opine:
> On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram writes:
> >> On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> A maintainer would
On 01/26/2011 06:28 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 04:49 AM, Jim wrote:
>> If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a
>> search on libreoffice with no results.
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11024
>
> Rahul
How do you install libre
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III
wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it.
They'd
still have to leave o
On 01/27/2011 04:57 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram writes:
>
>> On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III
>>> wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it.
They'd
still have to leave ou
On 01/27/2011 04:49 AM, Jim wrote:
> If Libreoffice is in the rawhide repo, what is the name of rpm, I did a
> search on libreoffice with no results.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11024
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change
Fernando Cassia writes:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Libreoffice however has the
strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code
from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
Rahul
So basically LibreOffice will be
Rahul Sundaram writes:
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd
still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s
On 01/26/2011 05:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/27/2011 03:53 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> I don´t think this is accurate. Two thirds of the former Sun
>> developers continue working at Oracle, on OpenOffice.org. This is part
>> of the "exodus towards LibreOffice" myth, that, given quoted fi
On 01/27/2011 03:53 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> I don´t think this is accurate. Two thirds of the former Sun
> developers continue working at Oracle, on OpenOffice.org. This is part
> of the "exodus towards LibreOffice" myth, that, given quoted figures,
> included only ~30 people. But it serves we
On 01/27/2011 03:55 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Libreoffice however has the
>> strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code
>> from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
>>
>> Rahul
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Libreoffice however has the
> strategic advantage because LibreOffice can continue to inherit code
> from Openoffice but not the other way around because of Oracle's policies.
>
> Rahul
So basically LibreOffice will be using big bad Oracle
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Well, since there are many more folks working in LO than on OOo, I'm
> wondering if the code is now flowing the other way? Possibly w/o their
> (LO's) knowledge.
I don´t think this is accurate. Two thirds of the former Sun
developers continu
On 01/27/2011 03:22 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Well, since there are many more folks working in LO than on OOo, I'm
> wondering if the code is now flowing the other way? Possibly w/o their
> (LO's) knowledge.
That isn't a likely scenarios for several different reasons. One of the
primary cataly
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 04:23:40 pm Rahul Sundaram did opine:
> On 01/27/2011 01:50 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > What about LibreOffice?
> >
> > IMO it should be one or the other, and given the politics involved, I
> > personally would prefer that LibreOffice gets the nod by most of the
> >
On 01/27/2011 01:50 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> What about LibreOffice?
>
> IMO it should be one or the other, and given the politics involved, I
> personally would prefer that LibreOffice gets the nod by most of the
> distro's that do not somehow, have a dog in this fight.
As indicated already,
On Wednesday, January 26, 2011 03:14:12 pm Rahul Sundaram did opine:
> On 01/27/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >> Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to
> >> maintain them. No because of any voting.
>
On 01/27/2011 01:15 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> They'd
>> still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
> Sine the USPTO basically gives patents on about anything, it´s a mine
> field. Basically you don´t know if something inf
On 01/27/2011 01:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd
>> still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
> I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody co
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:43:08 -0300,
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd
> > still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
>
> I´m not following wrt patents.
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> They'd
> still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
Sine the USPTO basically gives patents on about anything, it´s a mine
field. Basically you don´t know if something infringes on someone
else´s patent until you get sued.
N
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> A maintainer wouldn't have to be from Oracle, anyone could do it. They'd
> still have to leave out the stuff that had patent issues.
I´m not following wrt patents. It´s the same bloody code.
And why didn´t it prevent Fedora from including
On 01/27/2011 12:44 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to
>> maintain them. No because of any voting.
> So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain it for Fedora
> and cle
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:14:22 -0300,
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to
> > maintain them. No because of any voting.
>
> So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Packages are in the repository because someone is volunteering to
> maintain them. No because of any voting.
So if someone from Oracle choose to build and maintain it for Fedora
and cleared any trademark issues, it would be okay?.
Isn´t "
On 01/26/2011 09:20 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
>>> Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's.
>>> Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
>> It has been in the Rawhide repo for several we
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:50:12 -0300,
Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
> >> Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's.
> >> Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
> >
> > It has been in the
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
>> Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's.
>> Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
>
> It has been in the Rawhide repo for several weeks already. Won't be
> released for Fedora 14
W
On 01/26/2011 08:52 PM, Jim wrote:
> Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's.
> Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
It has been in the Rawhide repo for several weeks already. Won't be
released for Fedora 14
Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsu
Does any one know when LibreOffice will be released to the Fedora repo's.
Fedora 14 or Fedora 15 ?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mai
48 matches
Mail list logo
