OpenOffice.org V2 Beta Begins
Bob St.John
http://www.ecomstation.com/openoffice.phtml?url=ooo20beta1_read1st.html
Regards,
Bob St.John
Serenity Systems International
Mark Klebanoff
My interpretation of the readme is that I need to uninstall 1.1.5 in
order to install this beta. Seems like a major inconvenience for
something that admits to having "ugly fonts"
--
Franz Bakan
??
why? the readme tells:
...
before installation, uninstall any previous version 2.0 install
...
no mention that you should uninstall 1.1.5
Franz
Bob St.John
first drop of a beta. I certainly wouldn't suggest that folks use it as
a replacement for the current GA product at this time. There is a lot
of work to be done.
We are hoping for folks to test it and give us feedback on where the
errors are. It has been tested to an extent and now we want to broaden
the number of testers. But "this is a test".
Steve Wendt
> Access limited to Support Agreement customers:
> http://www.ecomstation.com/openoffice.phtml?url=ooo20beta1_read1st.html
I can't see where the source code and/or patches are available, as
required by the license.
Andreas Ludwig
>We are hoping for folks to test it and give us feedback on where the
>errors are. It has been tested to an extent and now we want to broaden
>the number of testers. But "this is a test".
Hi Bob,
I'm testing here at a dual screen system and have a couple of things to
report. Unfortunately I could only create 1 (ONE) support ticket. When I try
to create the 2nd, I get a red message reading:
"Please enter different value. This is recorded in our database."
I guess my order number is not accepted. But it was accepted for the first
ticket. Any chance to correct this?
If not: Here are the 3 most urgent observations:
1. No icons created during installation (tried multiple times with de and
en/us version). Running soffice.exe from commandline works well, though.
FWIW, I have OOo 1.1.5 installed and running fine here.
2. Problems with dual screen setup - text as well as 'paper format' are twice
as wide as would be correct. Obviously the screen resolution is used to
calculated the screen output proportions, and 2560x1024 is assumed to be 4x3
;o) I think this problem had been observed before with StarOffice/2 5.x and
SNAP dual screen.
3. Menus are still separate IWindows as in OOo 1.1.5 - the main window looses
focus when automatic focus change is activated in XWP. In this moment, the
menu is closed. Workaround is to press the mouse button all the time until
the right menu item is selected. Nothing major, but annoying.
4. Mail/browser integration doesn't work - I would really be interested in
having this feature, if needed configurable in a text file / directly in the
ini. Please think about including it in the feature list...
5. SLOW. I guess there is still a lot of debug code compiled in (?).
Cheers
Andreas
--
Andreas Ludwig
directly from Vienna
using PMINews 2 on eCS 1.01 German!
Mark Klebanoff
wrote:
> On 2006-09-20, Mark Klebanoff <maxi...@os2bbs.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 15:23:33 UTC, "Bob St.John"
> ><Serenity...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Access limited to Support Agreement customers:
> >>
> >> http://www.ecomstation.com/openoffice.phtml?url=ooo20beta1_read1st.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Bob St.John
> >> Serenity Systems International
> >
> > My interpretation of the readme is that I need to uninstall 1.1.5 in
> > order to install this beta. Seems like a major inconvenience for
> > something that admits to having "ugly fonts"
>
> ??
>
> why? the readme tells:
>
oops, I guess I need to be more careful when I read.
> before installation, uninstall any previous version 2.0 install
> ...
>
>
> no mention that you should uninstall 1.1.5
>
> Franz
--
Mark Dodel
wrote:
-> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:45:41 -0500, Bob St.John wrote:
->
-> >We are hoping for folks to test it and give us feedback on where the
-> >errors are. It has been tested to an extent and now we want to broaden
-> >the number of testers. But "this is a test".
->
-> Hi Bob,
->
-> I'm testing here at a dual screen system and have a couple of things to
-> report. Unfortunately I could only create 1 (ONE) support ticket. When I try
-> to create the 2nd, I get a red message reading:
->
-> "Please enter different value. This is recorded in our database."
->
-> I guess my order number is not accepted. But it was accepted for the first
-> ticket. Any chance to correct this?
->
-> If not: Here are the 3 most urgent observations:
->
-> 1. No icons created during installation (tried multiple times with de and
-> en/us version). Running soffice.exe from commandline works well, though.
-> FWIW, I have OOo 1.1.5 installed and running fine here.
->
I know its not of any help, but OpenOffice.org 2 Beta folder was
created here populated with 9 objects. I haven't tried everything
yet, but the basic text processor works and opens documents created by
1.1.5.
-> 2. Problems with dual screen setup - text as well as 'paper format' are twice
-> as wide as would be correct. Obviously the screen resolution is used to
-> calculated the screen output proportions, and 2560x1024 is assumed to be 4x3
-> ;o) I think this problem had been observed before with StarOffice/2 5.x and
-> SNAP dual screen.
->
-> 3. Menus are still separate IWindows as in OOo 1.1.5 - the main window looses
-> focus when automatic focus change is activated in XWP. In this moment, the
-> menu is closed. Workaround is to press the mouse button all the time until
-> the right menu item is selected. Nothing major, but annoying.
->
-> 4. Mail/browser integration doesn't work - I would really be interested in
-> having this feature, if needed configurable in a text file / directly in the
-> ini. Please think about including it in the feature list...
->
-> 5. SLOW. I guess there is still a lot of debug code compiled in (?).
->
On my T42p (1.8GHz) 1.1.5 opens (no document) in about 6 seconds, the
2.0 beta about 40 seconds. Typing in it doesn't seem any slower, same
for loading a single page document, but I haven't tried
formatting/loading any long docs yet.
Only issues I've run into so far is that it completely ignores my
Thinkpad's middle button scrolling (even though that is set in the
options) and it always opens full screen even though I change it to a
window before closing. And as you point out, opening a new document
opens a new, full screen window as well.
Mark
--
From the eComStation of Mark Dodel
http://www.os2voice.org
Warpstock 2006, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, Oct 12-15, 2006 -
http://www.warpstock.org
Bob St.John
>
>
> I'm testing here at a dual screen system and have a couple of things to
> report. Unfortunately I could only create 1 (ONE) support ticket. When I try
> to create the 2nd, I get a red message reading:
>
> "Please enter different value. This is recorded in our database."
>
> I guess my order number is not accepted. But it was accepted for the first
> ticket. Any chance to correct this?
OK ... we're looking into this.
Bob St.John
Source code will be provided to SUN so in can be integrated
into the current CVS servers. There is no definite date for
this availability.
Steve Wendt
> 1. No icons created during installation (tried multiple times with de and
> en/us version). Running soffice.exe from commandline works well, though.
> FWIW, I have OOo 1.1.5 installed and running fine here.
Worked here. Are you using the buggy version of WarpIn (1.0.11)?
> 2. Problems with dual screen setup - text as well as 'paper format' are twice
> as wide as would be correct. Obviously the screen resolution is used to
> calculated the screen output proportions, and 2560x1024 is assumed to be 4x3
> ;o) I think this problem had been observed before with StarOffice/2 5.x and
> SNAP dual screen.
Does this help?
http://www.scitechsoft.com/support/faq/fom.cgi?file=26
> 3. Menus are still separate IWindows as in OOo 1.1.5 - the main window looses
> focus when automatic focus change is activated in XWP. In this moment, the
> menu is closed. Workaround is to press the mouse button all the time until
> the right menu item is selected. Nothing major, but annoying.
Yes, I find this very annoying as well.
> 5. SLOW. I guess there is still a lot of debug code compiled in (?).
It helps to run lxlite on all the files in the program directory (and it
saves you about 140MB of disk space!).
Steve Wendt
> it always opens full screen even though I change it to a
> window before closing. And as you point out, opening a new document
> opens a new, full screen window as well.
I also find that annoying.
Andreas Ludwig
>Andreas Ludwig wrote:
>
>> 1. No icons created during installation (tried multiple times with de and
>> en/us version). Running soffice.exe from commandline works well, though.
>> FWIW, I have OOo 1.1.5 installed and running fine here.
>
>Worked here. Are you using the buggy version of WarpIn (1.0.11)?
Right. Worked like a charm with WarpIn 1.0.12. Thanks.
>> 2. Problems with dual screen setup - text as well as 'paper format' are twice
>> as wide as would be correct. Obviously the screen resolution is used to
>> calculated the screen output proportions, and 2560x1024 is assumed to be 4x3
>> ;o) I think this problem had been observed before with StarOffice/2 5.x and
>> SNAP dual screen.
>
>Does this help?
>http://www.scitechsoft.com/support/faq/fom.cgi?file=26
This as well. I wonder why OOo 1.1.5 had no issue with this...
>> 5. SLOW. I guess there is still a lot of debug code compiled in (?).
>
>It helps to run lxlite on all the files in the program directory (and it
>saves you about 140MB of disk space!).
I did this. It's still slow, but OK, there is a lot of debug code in there.
Thanks for the help
Steven Levine
at 09:30 AM, "Bob St.John" <Serenity...@comcast.net> said:
>Source code will be provided to SUN so in can be integrated
>into the current CVS servers. There is no definite date for
>this availability.
This is not sufficent for Serenity to be in compliance with the LGPL. See
the details in section 3 of the LGPL.
Regards,
Steven
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Levine <ste...@earthlink.bogus.net> MR2/ICE 2.67 #10183
Warp/eCS/DIY/14.103a_W4 www.scoug.com irc.fyrelizard.com #scoug (Wed 7pm PST)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex
> In <ut6dnbHGGajwP4_Y...@comcast.com>, on 09/21/2006
> at 09:30 AM, "Bob St.John" <Serenity...@comcast.net> said:
>
>
>> Source code will be provided to SUN so in can be integrated
>> into the current CVS servers. There is no definite date for
>> this availability.
>
> This is not sufficent for Serenity to be in compliance with the LGPL. See
> the details in section 3 of the LGPL.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven
>
I would like to have DBCS font support!
Thanks.
Bob St.John
> In <ut6dnbHGGajwP4_Y...@comcast.com>, on 09/21/2006
> at 09:30 AM, "Bob St.John" <Serenity...@comcast.net> said:
>
>
>
>>Source code will be provided to SUN so in can be integrated
>>into the current CVS servers. There is no definite date for
>>this availability.
>
>
> This is not sufficent for Serenity to be in compliance with the LGPL. See
> the details in section 3 of the LGPL.
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven
The developer is working with SUN. At this point, there are no
compliance issues that I'm aware of, We will comply with terms of the
license. What specific issue are you referring to? Does it appear in
http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html#SEC3?
Steve Wendt
>> This is not sufficent for Serenity to be in compliance with the LGPL.
>> See the details in section 3 of the LGPL.
>
> The developer is working with SUN. At this point, there are no
> compliance issues that I'm aware of, We will comply with terms of the
> license. What specific issue are you referring to? Does it appear in
> http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html#SEC3?
I think he meant section 4: "You may copy and distribute the Library
... in object code or executable form ... provided that you accompany it
with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code"
In other words, you can't provide binaries without providing the
matching source code. The source code only has to be provided to those
that have access to the binaries (aka "subscribers"), but those in turn
can give it (binaries and/or source) to whoever they want. If Tim
Martin makes it available on the P2P networks, it will actually be
perfectly legitimate (maybe that means he won't do it <G>).
Since this is the LGPL and not the GPL, you can have non-GPL components
that can't be legitimately redistributed - but the release notes clearly
say that there aren't any such components yet. And when there are such
components, there still needs to be an LGPL version that works.
This doesn't "protect your investment" but that is the license - you
don't really have a choice, because it isn't all your code. You can
distribute your part of the code under any license you want, but any
part that is integral with the LGPL code is automatically LGPL (which is
why some call it a "viral" effect).
This also protects Sun, because if a commercial entity wishes to create
a derivative work that is non-LGPL, and honor licenses, they can charge
them to license the "StarOffice" code under a commercial license. They
get the same code, but have more "commercial-friendly" options.
Steven Levine
at 03:57 AM, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org> said:
>I think he meant section 4:
Yes. It's section 3 in the GPL.
>The source code only has to be provided to those
>that have access to the binaries (aka "subscribers"), but those in turn
>can give it (binaries and/or source) to whoever they want.
True, but as you note this only applies to the LGPL components. Any
independently developed components can be licensed in whatever way the
developer desires.
>You can
>distribute your part of the code under any license you want, but any
>part that is integral with the LGPL code is automatically LGPL (which is
>why some call it a "viral" effect).
True, but the LGPL is pretty liberal if you take care to maintain the
required separation between your code and the LGPL code.
>This also protects Sun, because if a commercial entity wishes to create
>a derivative work that is non-LGPL, and honor licenses, they can charge
>them to license the "StarOffice" code under a commercial license. They
>get the same code, but have more "commercial-friendly" options.
This is not really specific to the LGPL. It's more of a basic copyright
holder protection. The copyright holder is always free to release what
they own under different licenses.
Bob St.John
<snip>
>
> This doesn't "protect your investment" but that is the license -
You can see my response in the eComStation OpenOffice.org ng. Short
story, we will comply with the LGPL license, both the terms and the
spirit. To be more clear, since source code is a term which gets bandied
about, we will be submitting our patches which allow SUN's source code
to be compiled for OS/2.
We are not selling software. We are selling services. These services
include compiling the code for the user. There are many folks who can do
this, but it is not a small task. We will also provide a system for
reporting issues, distribution of fixes, and we expect to provide
additional enhancements which will not be covered by the LGPL. These
enhancements will be for the exclusive use of our subscribers.
We will recover our investment by selling services and eComStation.
Alex Taylor
> You can distribute your part of the code under any license you want, but
> any part that is integral with the LGPL code is automatically LGPL
> (which is why some call it a "viral" effect).
And I wish they wouldn't. It's not very accurate.
A couple of years ago there was an excellent legal article (linked on /.)
that refuted the "viral" argument. I don't have it anymore, though. But,
as I recall, the important part was that (L)GPL is a license, not a
contract.
If you discover that you are using (L)GPL code in such a way as to require
open sourcing your own code according to the license terms, you don't HAVE
to make your own code available... AS LONG AS you stop using the (L)GPL
code as soon as possible, and terminate distribution of the offending
version(s). In other words, while the GPL irrefutably covers the original
open source code, it doesn't automatically spread to "infect" your own code
unless you consciously agree to it.
If you DON'T agree, then of course you have no legal right to use the GPL
code in that way. But you always have that choice. Even retroactively.
--
Alex Taylor
http://www.cs-club.org/~alex
Remove hat to reply (reply-to address).
Robert Murr
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:57:53 GMT, Steve Wendt <spa...@forgetit.org> wrote:
>> You can distribute your part of the code under any license you want, but
>> any part that is integral with the LGPL code is automatically LGPL
>> (which is why some call it a "viral" effect).
>
> And I wish they wouldn't. It's not very accurate.
>
> A couple of years ago there was an excellent legal article (linked on /.)
> that refuted the "viral" argument. I don't have it anymore, though. But,
> as I recall, the important part was that (L)GPL is a license, not a
> contract.
A license is a contract.
> If you discover that you are using (L)GPL code in such a way as to require
> open sourcing your own code according to the license terms, you don't HAVE
> to make your own code available... AS LONG AS you stop using the (L)GPL
> code as soon as possible, and terminate distribution of the offending
> version(s). In other words, while the GPL irrefutably covers the original
> open source code, it doesn't automatically spread to "infect" your own code
> unless you consciously agree to it.
>
The argument here is that there was no intentional breach of the license
agreement and that the licensee made a conscientious and good faith
effort to mitigate any actual breach of the license agreement.
> If you DON'T agree, then of course you have no legal right to use the GPL
> code in that way. But you always have that choice. Even retroactively.
>
The retroactivity is dependent upon whether the argument that at most
there was a negligent breach of the license agreement will stand up to
scrutiny.
My guess is that courts will protect the work of the programmers unless
there is some credible evidence of lack of good faith.
Cordially,
RWM
Alex Taylor
>> A couple of years ago there was an excellent legal article (linked on /.)
>> that refuted the "viral" argument. I don't have it anymore, though. But,
>> as I recall, the important part was that (L)GPL is a license, not a
>> contract.
>
> A license is a contract.
IANAL, and especially IANAUSL, but I'm positive it can't be a contract if
you don't sign it.
You can sign a contract that includes acceptance of a license, of course,
but that's not the same thing. OTOH, this particular semantic isn't
particular relevant to the point.
Michael DeBusk
> IANAL, and especially IANAUSL, but I'm positive it can't be a
> contract if you don't sign it.
When I studied contract law (twenty years ago, mind you), there were
six elements to a contract:
* An offer must be made (Buy my car for $2000.)
* That offer must be accepted (OK, I'll buy your car for $2000)
* Both parties must be legally competent (Neither of us is a minor,
mentally ill person, intoxicated person, etc.)
* Both parties must understand and agree to the terms equally (It's a
2001 Chevrolet Corvette, VIN number is 123456789X, it's not a model
kit or a Matchbox car but a real car, I'm not kidding, etc.)
* The objective must be a legal one (I own the car, it's not stolen)
* Consideration (We actually have to exchange something of value)
So it's a contract if you accept the terms, regardless of whether you
actually write your name with a pen on a line at the bottom of a piece
of paper. There are myriad ways to "sign" a contract.
NB that IANAL either. I studied contract law as part of a business
degree I never finished, not to pass the bar.
Robert Murr
Alex Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 10:01:03 -0700, Robert Murr <rwm...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> A couple of years ago there was an excellent legal article (linked on /.)
>>> that refuted the "viral" argument. I don't have it anymore, though. But,
>>> as I recall, the important part was that (L)GPL is a license, not a
>>> contract.
>> A license is a contract.
>
> IANAL, and especially IANAUSL, but I'm positive it can't be a contract if
> you don't sign it.
>
> You can sign a contract that includes acceptance of a license, of course,
> but that's not the same thing. OTOH, this particular semantic isn't
> particular relevant to the point.
Presumably Michael DeBusk got an A in his business law class.:-)
If you were discussing the concept of 'contracts' with your small child,
you would do well to emphasize that the term 'contract' is virtually
synonymous with 'agreement.' Many of the technicalities in contract law
follow from disputes as to when agreement has been reached.
Also, you will see, if you give it some thought, that semantic analysis
is a very important part of the work done by lawyers and courts. We use
the word 'semantics' dismissively in non-legal contexts, but lawyers
cannot do so and hope to do their duty to a client competently.
Cordially,
RWM
Michael DeBusk
> Presumably Michael DeBusk got an A in his business law class.:-)
Not in the whole class, no, I believe I got a C. I think all the Latin
terms tripped me up. But I did well with contracts. :)
> If you were discussing the concept of 'contracts' with your small
> child, you would do well to emphasize that the term 'contract' is
> virtually synonymous with 'agreement.' Many of the technicalities in
> contract law follow from disputes as to when agreement has been
> reached.
That's one reason why there's been a movement toward "plain language"
in legal documents over the past few years.
And wasn't there some sort of uproar a few years back when a software
company put their EULA inside the package and had it start with, "By
opening the package, you have agreed to..."? That one was definitely
invalid because there was no opportunity to agree or disagree before
the seller claimed acceptance.
> Also, you will see, if you give it some thought, that semantic
> analysis is a very important part of the work done by lawyers and
> courts. We use the word 'semantics' dismissively in non-legal
> contexts, but lawyers cannot do so and hope to do their duty to a
> client competently.
Semantics is the study of meaning... of how we assign meaning to a
symbol. I've never been able to understand why anyone would use it
dismissively. I can't think of anything more important in a discussion
than determining the meaning.
Robert Murr
Michael DeBusk wrote:
> And wasn't there some sort of uproar a few years back when a software
> company put their EULA inside the package and had it start with, "By
> opening the package, you have agreed to..."? That one was definitely
> invalid because there was no opportunity to agree or disagree before
> the seller claimed acceptance.
>
Many companies did so. In those cases, courts would have enforced the
portions of the license agreement which were reasonable restrictions on
the licensee. The arguments regarding this policy can go on ad nauseum.
It is only an unreasonable restriction on the licensee when, as you
pointed out, the licensee requires some exposure to the packaged
material in order to make an informed decision as to whether to accept
the software. Courts would enforce provisions such as prohibitions of
distribution of the software to third parties and non-transferability of
the license.
>
> Semantics is the study of meaning... of how we assign meaning to a
> symbol. I've never been able to understand why anyone would use it
> dismissively. I can't think of anything more important in a discussion
> than determining the meaning.
>
Well, in informal communication, meaning is affected by context. In a
face to face conversation, body language and tone of voice can convey
more of the intended message than the words themselves...
Cordially,
RWM