Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi :)
On the other hand you quite enjoy using Personas (but without them having a
corporate logo) to tweak your own version of LO to the way you like it and
a lot of people add Extensions, dictionaries and all sorts.

Almost always all those are completely harmless.  I imagine people usually
want to make it clear that they have done things to it = to take credit for
it or to distinguish it from the vanilla flavour.

I am not sure it is possible to do modifications without making it clear
that there have been changes tbh
Regards from
Tom :)

On 16 July 2014 17:21, Kracked_P_P---webmaster <>

I would not use a "modified" version of LO, that adds their logos [or
other things] without telling the user that they have modified LO from the
original version.  I had one software do that and it took weeks of work to
install the "non-modified" version so the modifications were no longer
seen.  I just do not trust these "un-stated modified versions".  I create a
DVD project for LO and use the original files [all 90+ of them].  I would
never modify LO and not tell people that is has been modified.  The DVD
labels that are included in my DVD project .iso files show both my side and
the official LO site URLs next to each other in/on the label "artwork"
files and DVD media I burn/print.  I also hate the modified software
packages that then require the user to go to the original software help
service and you are told that since the software was modified those
help-line people cannot help the user[s].

Yes, open source and freely modifiable is a good idea, but those developed
modified packages should not be called the "exact" same name as the
unmodified ones and distributed that way.  We need independent coders to
"play" with ideas and tweaking LO, to see what they can do to improve the
package, or make it "their own version".  But users need to know if they
are being given a modified package.  Once I repository version of LO had a
different color splash screen as the same version number downloaded from LO
pages.  I wondered what else was modified, but the Linux help system could
not tell me and would not even admit to that they changed the splash screen
in their repository version.  So I tend remove repository version after the
"updating" and install the official LO website version[s].

Yes, I have had problems with false-positives with some security packages,
but less with Comodo's free :Internet Suite" of security software.  Of
course, it is good to make sure of the software source[s] and run
anti-virus on the downloaded install file[s] BEFORE you install them.  Some
packages automatically check downloaded files before they are saves outside
if the "download temp. folder" before it is saved in the targeted one,
while others do not.  Also make sure you use "Web of Trust" that has a
rating system that warns of issues with web pages that might be better to
avoid - say kid safe, security issues reported, etc..  It works with Google
search and as a "web page entry advisor" on Chrome, Firefox, and IE.  Free

On 07/16/2014 09:34 AM, Tom Davies wrote:

Hi :)
It is more likely to be a false-positive.  All anti-virus and security
systems run the risk of finding false-positives otherwise they are not
working hard enough.

Also the software competes against major profit-making software from
certain companies so their security programs or anti-virus programs could
have a good reason to have such 'accidents'.

On the other hand the software is free to distribute and
modify&distribute so that people can have tweaked versions to cover a
variety of scenarios.  For example on Cds/Dvds glued to the front of mags,
or in corporate environments to place their logo in the menu-bars.  Almost
all of these are legitimate and trustworthy.  They should all point to the
main official website to make it easy to get the pure original from;

If that version created a problem then it would be great to hear which
security program or anti-virus you are using and maybe someone here, or
you, could let them know they have a false-positive.

Good luck and regards from
Tom :)

On 16 July 2014 13:48, Kracked_P_P---webmaster < <>> wrote:

    On 07/16/2014 02:33 AM, Against thieves wrote:

        my software detected your libreoffice have many trojan and
        malware spy file at your installation file and setuped
        folder,welcome to clean and fix such trojan,otherwise,your
        software are unsafe

    Where did you get the install file and was the detection on that
    file or after it was installed? What OS are you using and which
    Anti-Virus, and detection/cleaning, packages are you using?  That
    may help use know what is going on.

    I have never heard of this issue coming up before.  My Comodo
    suite of software has never detected any Trojan and other
    "nasties" in LO's install files. I have the 4.2.5 installed on my
    main Win7 laptop and LO was clean.

    --     To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.
    Posting guidelines + more:
    List archive:
    All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and
    cannot be deleted

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.