[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OpenOffice.org new unstable packages available for testing

> If third parties choose to ignore the ".org"
> (I know I do) there's nothing sun can do about it...

I think Debian should drop the ".org" from the package
names.  The only reason to keep the ".org" would be to
distinguish it from an "openoffice" package containing
the software whose author owns the "OpenOffice"(tm) name
in certain countries.  But if OpenOffice(tm) is commercial
software (as I am assuming it is ... I can't find it in
Google, although there are some other things called by
the name) then there will never be such a package in Debian.

The copyright on "OpenOffice" makes it illegal to
market another software product as "OpenOffice".
SFAIK it doesn't restrict how Debian names its packages.
If it did then some other Debian packages would be in
trouble.  But perhaps this question should be passed on
to Debian's legal eagles?

I wouldn't suggest a name change at this point in the
development cycle, but for one thing: it worries me
that the present name contains a dot.  This is asking
for trouble.  The dot is widely used to delimit filename
extensions.  Utilities such as run-parts do not include
the dot as one of the characters they allow in the names
of files they process.  So it probably won't be possible
consistently to use "openoffice.org" to form filenames
without confusing some utility or another.  (Yes,
I grant that many packages include dots as parts of
version suffixes, e.g., the libssl0.9.6 package.)

Indeed, I notice that the current package includes
but also
which seems inconsistent.

".org" signifies to me a sort of website, not a sort of program.
It's a misleading name (as is Microsoft's ".NET"), adopted only
because someone failed to do an adequate name search when
"OpenOffice" was hastily introduced as a cute replacement for

I suggest that the OOo team employ the shorter, simpler
"openoffice".  Either that or "ooo".  But perhaps the change
would be too much trouble at this point.

Thomas Hood

Reply to: