From: Lars Nooden on
On 04/19/2010 11:39 PM, Dr. Bernhard Dippold wrote:

> I thought my reply to your mail showed what I really meant.

It might, it might not.

> Now I used the word "copy" again ...

Regardless of the string of letters used, copy by any other name has the
same meaning semantically. So when you mean copy, it's not surprising
that you use the word, again and again. Repeated use over time of the
same semantic context shows the sincerity of the apparent wish to either
copy or frame as a copy. The former is not appropriate for projects
that wish to succeed and the latter is inaccurate (at best) and appears
an effort at revisionism.

The trick, "let's say one thing and do another" might work for kids or
be funny on the playground at your school, but it does impare group work
and does have other detrimental effects.

/Lars



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe(a)openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help(a)openoffice.org

From: Lars Nooden on
Thorsten, oh that's rich, coming from Novell staff.

His apology is made of fine words, but the behavior repeats. Copying by
any other name is still a semantically incorrect description of the
project's status, history and, I do hope, goals.

All that is a distraction from the problem of revisionism. It's been an
issue several times before and that it's happening again only means that
it needs to be dealt with again.

Here are a few old articles that address the problem the time it came up
with OOo 2

http://smallbusinessreview.com/technology/Free_Office_Software/

http://opennotes.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/8-simple-rules-for-switching-to-openofficeorg/



Regards
/Lars

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe(a)openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help(a)openoffice.org