| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yoxi
Cipher
Joined: Sep 07, 2004
Posts: 1799
Location: Dawlish, Devon
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject: Portable NeoOffice |
|
Over at MacUpdate Portable OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 r1.0 I replied to someone enquiring about whether the portable still needed X11 by telling them about NeoOffice (and the upcoming v2, and the on-the-way intel version). The developer responded to my reply by writing "A portable NeoOffice is coming soon". He's distributing portable OOo free, but would a portable NeoOffice be a breach of copyright? Thought I'd draw your attention to this.
- Padmavyuha |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
I will need to check, but if they comply with our public trademark usage guidelines (e.g. any profit after expesnes is donated back to Neo) then it's fine. Since it's not a for-profit distribution, I personally don't see anything that would go against trademark usage guidelines at present 
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yoxi
Cipher
Joined: Sep 07, 2004
Posts: 1799
Location: Dawlish, Devon
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
| Good-oh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pluby
The Architect
Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 11949
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
| OPENSTEP wrote: | | I will need to check, but if they comply with our public trademark usage guidelines (e.g. any profit after expesnes is donated back to Neo) then it's fine. Since it's not a for-profit distribution, I personally don't see anything that would go against trademark usage guidelines at present |
Not so fast Ed. The trademark guidelines limit use of the trademark for "mirroring of only the NeoOffice® binaries". If they modify the code to something different than what we have distributed, they won't be in compliance with our trademark guidelines. Why? Because I have no intention of supporting someone else's modifications. GPL allows you to create a derivative product from the NeoOffice sources, just don't call it NeoOffice.
If they send me the patches and I put them in one of the NeoOffice releases or patches, then they can use the NeoOffice trademark.
Does that make sense? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LemonAid
The Anomaly
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 1285
Location: Witless Protection Program
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: Re: Portable NeoOffice |
|
| yoxi wrote: | Over at MacUpdate Portable OpenOffice.org 2.0.2 r1.0 I replied to someone enquiring about whether the portable still needed X11 by telling them about NeoOffice (and the upcoming v2, and the on-the-way intel version). The developer responded to my reply by writing "A portable NeoOffice is coming soon". He's distributing portable OOo free, but would a portable NeoOffice be a breach of copyright? Thought I'd draw your attention to this.
- Padmavyuha |
I did not see the post about a version of portable NeoOffice.
I think that I agree with Patrick on this.
If an individual would want to combine the "portable" patches with NeoOffice that would be fine, or if the code/patches are sent to Patrick for inclusion.
On the Developer's site he clearly states at the bottom of his web page Portable OpenOffice.org OS X:
[quote]OpenOffice.org provided is an unmodified version
of official binaries downloaded from www.openoffice.org licensed under:
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991
Created by Gand
Last modified 2006-04-29 05:59 PM
I like to think that "portable" developer would be willing to work with NeoOffice developers in a way that they would both be happy.
Philip (Am I confused? Doesn't NeoOffice 2.OH! Alpha already look like Aqua OOo for Mac? "Duck!"  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
I only did a quick browsing as I was off with family, but I was under the impression that it was only binaries wrapped up in a form that fits on a multiplatform flash drive. I didn't see anything involving source code modifications, but didn't look deeply.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jakeOSX
Ninja
Joined: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 1373
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
| the portable openoffice.org version works by taking the oo.o x11 binary as it is and putting it in the script that he wrote. i suspect that the same attempt will be made for neooffice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OPENSTEP
The One
Joined: May 25, 2003
Posts: 4752
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
OK, hopefully we can coordinate on technical details and then we can come to a decision about the trademark issue.
It's still advisable to use the installer to place Neo on a system because the installer does do things in the preflight and postflight to fix bugs. For example, the spotlight plugin requires the extra mdimport -r step after installation to trigger indexing. I think even if the plugin is on removable media, indexed files will remain indexed.
ed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pluby
The Architect
Joined: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 11949
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
| jakeOSX wrote: | | the portable openoffice.org version works by taking the oo.o x11 binary as it is and putting it in the script that he wrote. i suspect that the same attempt will be made for neooffice. |
A script? NeoOffice isn't a Unix app like OOo X11. It is started from the Finder. This is the sort of thing that made us put the "limited to only NeoOffice binaries available from Planamesa Software" in the trademark usage guidelines.
Patrick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
