On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 07:01:53PM -0300, Claudio Filho wrote:
> > As mentioned before, I would also recommend to include the LibreOffice
> > logo somewhere, but I am not sure if you must switch them or just add
> > them both. This legal thing is somewhere over my head.
>
> I really will not enter in this question, Victor, by a (bad) personal
> experience, but only who passed by this scenario (and wasn't only i,
> and wasn't only in Brazil, but developers and volunteers from many
> parts of world), prefers don't discuss more this point.
>
> And more some months, i believe that we will to correct this question
> with Apache OpenOffice again inside of Debian, how was discussed in
> openoffice@debian list.
Claudio, given that: (1) it seems a contentious topic, (2) smells a
little bit of hidden agendas (which in Debian we tend not to
appreciate), and (3) it is off-topic for this list; we will appreciate
if you and all interested parties can keep the OOO vs LibreOffice
discussion where it belongs, i.e. on the mailing lists of the maintainer
who actually do the corresponding packaging work.
Rest assured that mentioning Apache OOO on this list or in your
infographic will have no impact whatsoever on the office suites
available in Debian.
Regarding your infographic, we appreciate your work and I personally
find it very nice. But, as it has been pointed out several times, as
long as you do not release it under a DFSG compatible license, it is
doomed to be considered a second class citizen in Debian promotion.
Please reconsider.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature