Getting Started Guide_Setting up Libreoffice

I have not read nor edited most of the resource material.

Perhaps, it would help if the reviewers were advised to submit their reviewed copy on the latest template copy, which contains useful exposition. Especially if the review covers the entire document.

The document properties might help with determining if the latest, most-current template was employed for the particular document being reviewed or technically edited.

Gary

The sky is not falling, as Chicken Little imagined.

I disagree, primarily because literally many thousands, if not millions or billions even, of documents contain such Microsoft screen captures. MICROSOFT DOES NOT CARE... Why should they? They even give away much of their software nowadays.

Removing the Windows XP silver screenshots was needless busy work that wasted time and effort, which could have introduced errors in the process. The old saw: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Gary

Hi :slight_smile:
Gary you don't seem like someone that is qualified to give legal advice such as
that. I'm not sure you would accept responsibility and pay costs if your advice
if damages were incurred as a result of taking your legal advice. Sadly we do
not live in a simplistic children's story book.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Microsoft makes its money from selling products--not suing people. Besides, the desktop computer will become a relic for most users within five or ten years--probably already, to a degree. Even the laptops will go the same route.

Microsoft has bigger fish to fry in evolving its business model in order to remain competitive than to worry about trifles like screenshots of its (unsupported, even...) XP silver GUI employed in documents. The legalese you refer to is simply the routine boilerplate wording that virtually all developers and others employ on their copyright pages. I am bemused (and Jean and others probably too) that time and effort was spent needlessly on changing the former screenshots.

Gary

As you seem to be a current worker bee, you might want to examine the work-in-process, revised version 3.3.3 chapter template that I am working on. It contains edit tracking of the changes so far, plus some comments that were inserted via the Insert menu. You can then see how an edited version of a document should appear.

My defaults for edit tracking are to employ green underlines for additions, red strike-throughs for deletions, and bold blue for most format changes. Some format changes do not show up in the edit changes with LO or OOo. So, for those that do not appear, an editor should employ comments, which will appear at the right side of the document. Some of those untracked changes are those involved with vertical table alignment, for example.

In the event you want to move material around in a document being edited, plus use edit-tracking on a moved paragraph, entire subsection, or whatever, there are two ways to do that. (1) Employ two versions of the document, with edit tracking employed in each document--make the edits in the first, and afterward move the material in the second document. (2) The second means is to turn off edit tracking for the moves and afterward restore edit tracking again. Then, use comments to describe just what got moved and from where. The point to remember is that if you move content after it was edit tracked, the move will destroy the edit-tracked changes (accepts them, by default). That may not be desirable.

I generally park things being worked on in one or another of my (mostly way incomplete) forum websites. The forums serve as chronicles of sorts, so that I know where the stuff was parked, plus copious notes and such in topic messages. Also, anybody (registered...) could comment on them, although I generally do not make notice much of any forum, other than an e-mail signature or rare explicit links from e-mails. The revised template was parked there recently, and can be accessed at: LO templates <http://technicaleditor.livernoisyard.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=56>, where the template and its AutoText BAU file can be downloaded.

Gary

Hi :slight_smile:
Lol. Why all this change of direction? and why did this suddenly occur moments
AFTER Jean left for a couple of weeks?

Ignoring the advice of legal experts based on a quick read of a children's fairy
story does not make any sense to me. From a quick google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._TomTom
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v.TomTom%282008,_USA%29
MS sued a company for using fat32, not even the more advanced Ntfs, and won.
Fat32 is pretty much the standard system used by the vast majority of people on
external storage devices. Being unaware of court actions and being unaware of
the strategy MS uses (such as buying-up software patents) does not make us safe
from those issues.

It would be really paranoid to think that Gary might be an MS employee but he is
using fairly standard tactics that would normally be designed by a competitor to
disrupt a community-led group.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Quoting Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>:

Hi :slight_smile:
Lol. Why all this change of direction? and why did this suddenly occur moments
AFTER Jean left for a couple of weeks?

Ignoring the advice of legal experts based on a quick read of a children's fairy
story does not make any sense to me. From a quick google search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._TomTom
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v.TomTom%282008,_USA%29
MS sued a company for using fat32, not even the more advanced Ntfs, and won.
Fat32 is pretty much the standard system used by the vast majority of people on
external storage devices. Being unaware of court actions and being unaware of
the strategy MS uses (such as buying-up software patents) does not make us safe
from those issues.

It would be really paranoid to think that Gary might be an MS employee but he is
using fairly standard tactics that would normally be designed by a competitor to
disrupt a community-led group.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/05/2012229/Microsofts-Hottest-New-Profit-Center-Android?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=twitter

rday

Hi Gary,

I generally park things being worked on in one or another of my (mostly way
incomplete) forum websites. The forums serve as chronicles of sorts, so that
I know where the stuff was parked, plus copious notes and such in topic
messages. Also, anybody (registered...) could comment on them, although I
generally do not make notice much of any forum, other than an e-mail
signature or rare explicit links from e-mails. The revised template was
parked there recently, and can be accessed at: LO templates
<http://technicaleditor.livernoisyard.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=56>,
where the template and its AutoText BAU file can be downloaded.

Alfresco is where we are *currently* storing work in progress...

Do I have your permission to retrieve the aforementioned template file
and upload it to Alfresco? Do you release your file under the LGPL3?

Hi,

Quoting Tom Davies <tomdavies04@yahoo.co.uk>:

> Hi :slight_smile:
> Lol. Why all this change of direction? and why did this suddenly
> occur moments
> AFTER Jean left for a couple of weeks?
>
>
> Ignoring the advice of legal experts based on a quick read of a
> children's fairy
> story does not make any sense to me. From a quick google search
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._TomTom
> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Microsoft_v.TomTom%282008,_USA%29
> MS sued a company for using fat32, not even the more advanced Ntfs, and won.
> Fat32 is pretty much the standard system used by the vast majority
> of people on
> external storage devices. Being unaware of court actions and being
> unaware of
> the strategy MS uses (such as buying-up software patents) does not
> make us safe
> from those issues.
>
>
> It would be really paranoid to think that Gary might be an MS
> employee but he is
> using fairly standard tactics that would normally be designed by a
> competitor to
> disrupt a community-led group.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/05/2012229/Microsofts-Hottest-New-Profit-Center-Android?utm_source=slashdot&utm_medium=twitter

rday

Unless someone is willing to spend the time and money to properly
research the US legal issues, the safest course is avoid any chance of
putting us into a possible legal crosshairs. I have neither. The problem
is that no one has come forward who is US attorney and knowledgeable on
software related issues to advise us. MS could consider LO as a direct
competitor to MSO and thus would look for our legal blunders committed
out of ignorance of US law.

It may be more tedious for us to make sure our screenshots do not show
anything that would imply a Windows OS but it is safer. I doubt any
Linux distro would be upset if their desktop was identifiable in one of
our screenshots. In fact a subtle plug could made by saying all the
screenshots were made on various Linux distros. Many Windows users think
we are command line using dinosaurs and would be surprised to see a
vaguely familiar desktop.

Yes, you (meaning, anybody) have my permission to retrieve and utilize the revised LO template stored on any of my websites, including the one containing the LO template previously linked to in a message a few days ago. However, I made no explicit effort for releasing my files under LGPL3. I will likely employ Alfresco for the completed version, though.

If LO docs people would care to employ a better template, I suggest that a improved template (like mine provided with no strings attached) be employed instead of the current form, which is OK, but which contains errors and such. Still others errors, such as some confusion still lingering on in the template exposition pertaining to the use of the list paragraph style also will be made before I deemed it completed.

In the interim, anybody is free to use my LO template version or to comment on the changes made so far, in addition to those changes that will follow, whenever I get around to them. No permission need be asked for employing anything of mine that I park on my own personal websites. Especially after I made them available previously.

Eventually, I will remove any OOo and LO branding info from my revised OOo/LO templates, upon which I provided much design input during the past five years, in order to produce a generic, standard template that most anybody could employ for their own personal or organizational use.

Gary

One would have to be extremely paranoid to even think that Microsoft would bother suing anybody or any organization over any screenshots with the Windows XP theme appearing in any non-MS documents. (Most people, even Microsoft, have lives...) Especially considering that Windows XP is nearly a decade old and is not even officially supported by Microsoft any longer, as MS considers Windows XP as being economically obsolete, for sales purposes.

Gary

Hi :slight_smile:
How about if we sold LibreOffice on usb-sticks that could be read by Windows?
Would it be paranoid to think that MS might bother to chase to chase us if we
did that?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Microsoft, like other older established (considered to be a dinosaur, to some folk) IT firms, is far more concerned about its remaining economically relevant in the marketplace in near future than in its wasting any time and effort concerning such trifles as screenshots.showing the obsolete Windows XP theme appearing in third-party documents. After all, there are literally millions (billions?) of such screen captures to be found nearly everywhere on the planet. Yet not a real peep from Microsoft other than standard, routine boilerplate legalese (found virtually everywhere on copyright pages).

My common-sense take on this (non)issue is that Microsoft would actually not object to any such public exposure of their GUI than in suppressing it, as it provides free advertising for the (now-obsolete) product. Ditto for Apple.

Gary

Hi Gary,

My common-sense take on this (non)issue is that Microsoft would actually
not object to any such public exposure of their GUI than in suppressing
it, as it provides free advertising for the (now-obsolete) product.
Ditto for Apple.

Common sense is often not the reflection of the law. Is the DMCA a piece
of common sense legislation ? Is the EU Copyright Directive a piece of
common sense legislation ? Some might say yes, many others, including
myself (as an IP lawyer), no, given the extent to which the powers
extended to IP rights holders may be wielded. Debate is irrelevant in
the end, the rights in the "work" exist - either they are respected or
they aren't, but IMHO that is for the SC to decide and not for the
documentation subproject.

Alex

And there are some paranoid types today who think that legal (or governmental...) permission is needed in order for anybody to "take a dump."

Attorneys always can be expected to do those things that further their own business interests, BTW, some of the worst (legal) advice or laws purposely are created by attorneys--who either do or else should know better).

I have been fairly inactive the past year in my efforts as a technical editor since my first OOo involvement in OOo documents (primarily as the editor of the the Writer Guide for a while or template development during the really lean-personnel days of OOoAuthors) beginning back during 2006 for me. So, I have not been "reading the mail" in this and other lists until fairly recently concerning OOo/LO document matters. However, I thought from my occasional reading of posts in this list over the past year that Jean Weber initially considered the changeover from Winfows XP silver screenshots in the OOo documents (used by LO as the major basis for newer LO docs) as being somewhat unnecessary.

My point being: I, for one, will not worry myself or fret over any use of indirectly proprietary screenshots ever appearing in my own documents. That puts me firmly in the vast majority of writers or editors in this regard. However, if any group or organization wants to avoid doing that--for whatever reason, even foolish ones--that is OK with me, too.

Gary

Gary,

OpenOffice was able to hide behind Sun's legal team. It was never marketed in
English speaking countries as heavily as, for example, Europe & Brasil. In
Europe LibreOffice & OpenOffice are used by an estimated 20% of the market. In
Brasil much higher apparently. In England less than 1%. In 10 years of working
in various offices in England and talking to people from other offices i have
heard 3 people mention OpenOffice. None of those 3 was in a good way.

Sun folded and Oracle didn't feel able to continue running OpenOffice against
the might of MS. Heck, Oracle couldn't even compete against TDF, even with the
head-start they had! Apache are trying to give OpenOffice a go but seem to be
changing the licensing away from copyleft to their own, more restrictive,
licensing. They appear to be co-operating with TDF rather than fighting it.

LibreOffice does not have the luxury of a legal department and does not intend
to remain small and irrelevant. If your vision of writing documentation is to
continue writing only for small irrelevant organisations/products then
LibreOffice is not really the right place for you. LibreOffice is likely to be
seen as threatening a core income-stream of a massive organisation.

Should we be prepared for our work to be able to stand firm or should we hope
that LibreOffice remains small and unthreatening so that no-one bothers to
attack?

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Sounds more like a pep talk than anything...

Gary

Hi,

OK, well we've started a thread on the SC Discuss list, and have
requested the SC to discuss the matter at a forthcoming confcall and
take a decision regarding screenshots of LibreOffice software taken on
a Windows OS.

Hopefully, we might get a decision of some kind by the SC that can
stand as a reference...

Hi,

>
> Hi Gary,
>
>> My common-sense take on this (non)issue is that Microsoft would actually
>> not object to any such public exposure of their GUI than in suppressing
>> it, as it provides free advertising for the (now-obsolete) product.
>> Ditto for Apple.
> Common sense is often not the reflection of the law. Is the DMCA a piece
> of common sense legislation ? Is the EU Copyright Directive a piece of
> common sense legislation ? Some might say yes, many others, including
> myself (as an IP lawyer), no, given the extent to which the powers
> extended to IP rights holders may be wielded. Debate is irrelevant in
> the end, the rights in the "work" exist - either they are respected or
> they aren't, but IMHO that is for the SC to decide and not for the
> documentation subproject.
>
>
> Alex

And there are some paranoid types today who think that legal (or
governmental...) permission is needed in order for anybody to "take a dump."

Attorneys always can be expected to do those things that further their
own business interests, BTW, some of the worst (legal) advice or laws
purposely are created by attorneys--who either do or else should know
better).

I have been fairly inactive the past year in my efforts as a technical
editor since my first OOo involvement in OOo documents (primarily as the
editor of the the Writer Guide for a while or template development
during the really lean-personnel days of OOoAuthors) beginning back
during 2006 for me. So, I have not been "reading the mail" in this and
other lists until fairly recently concerning OOo/LO document matters.
However, I thought from my occasional reading of posts in this list over
the past year that Jean Weber initially considered the changeover from
Winfows XP silver screenshots in the OOo documents (used by LO as the
major basis for newer LO docs) as being somewhat unnecessary.

My point being: I, for one, will not worry myself or fret over any use
of indirectly proprietary screenshots ever appearing in my own
documents. That puts me firmly in the vast majority of writers or
editors in this regard. However, if any group or organization wants to
avoid doing that--for whatever reason, even foolish ones--that is OK
with me, too.

Gary

--

Gary Schnabl
Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is...

Technical Editor forum <http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/>

The relevant legal issue is the that the copyright is valid and will be
valid for many more years on Windows design elements. Under US copyright
law the minimum length of a valid copyright is something like 70 years,
so the XP copyrights will be valid for about another 60 years or so. The
are two safe ways to avoid being sued: get permission from the copyright
owner or do not infringe at all. The permission should be in writing,
signed by authorized owner representative. To my knowledge the TDF does
not have permission from Microsoft for use in of MS elements in a
screenshot.

The only way the copyright can expire before its statuary term is for
the owner to put the work (as it is called) into the public domain.
Alternatively they can issue the work under a creative commons or
"copyleft" type grant allowing users to use the work freely with
possible stipulations about attribution. To my knowledge MS has not done
either for the Windows design elements.

To gave an example, as an amateur photographer I own the copyright to
all my photos from the moment of creation under US copyright law. Unless
I grant you permission to use any of my photos I have the legal right to
sue for damages and will probably win. I can give different
people/groups different permissions for the some the work.

If something is a trademark, the trademark holder must show that they
will defend their trademark. Translation, they must sue trademark
infringers aggressively or risk losing the trademark and any related
brand value from it. This is different from copyright where the owner is
not obligated to aggressively protect the copyright from infringement. I
do not know what is specifically a trademark on the Windows GUI nor do I
want find out by being sued. Coca-Cola is very aggressive about
protecting their trademark "Coke" from infringement. If you call a cola
you server in your cafe Coke, it had better be Coke and not Pepsi or
some other cola. Coca-Cola is known to sue over this.

The fact that others may use something without getting permission does
not mean that we should also. It is not a valid defense in court.

I suspect that most publishers know enough to get the appropriate
permissions prior to publishing and releasing a work. It is possible
they could a blanket agreement allowing certain uses for any work
published during the agreement term.

I consider the use of having Windows XP screenshots much like Seinfeld conveniently "advertising" various products during his TV series episodes by having them displayed in the background without (usually) any overt attention ever made to them. (An example might be drinking a certain beverage or eating a certain breakfast cereal produced by certain (indirect) sponsors.) Of course, those sponsors paid Seinfeld to display their products in the first place.

Myself, I tend not to take very seriously any very remote possibility of lawsuits from such indirect exposure of Windows XP (or whatever) screen captures in documents. Of course, one should request permission from any such copyright holders for that purpose. My guess is that Microsoft could not be bothered one way or the other with this outside of being a drain on its resources, as that would be simply time-consuming, not cost-effective nonsense (meaning, extra co$t$) in their doing so. If this peripheral area was of any real concern to Microsoft, they surely would have responded by now in a material manner to this during the past two-plus decades that their Windows products were employed as GUIs.

Again, I repeat my surmise that Microsoft would not ever be concerned about this area unless their intellectual property were to be employed in an instance that portrayed them in a very bad light. And even that would be a stretch.

Gary