Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team


Hi :)
I think the question should be 

"Can the documentation team continue to be consistent and use themes that it 
previously agreed or should it switch to using Windows and therefore make 
documentation have randomly different themes and OSes for screen-shots?"

With possible sub-questions to be asked 
"If Windows is chosen then can the SC agree to TDF taking full responsibility if 
any legal issues crop up as a result?"
"If Windows is chosen then should the nearly completed guides be re-done to use 
screen-shots from Windows only?"


Regards from
Tom :)




________________________________
From: André Schnabel <andre.schnabel@gmx.net>
To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Wed, 13 July, 2011 16:45:38
Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team

Hi David,

Am 13.07.2011 17:34, schrieb David Nelson:
I noted your change to the agenda item:

"(Italo: I do not like the way this item for discussion has been
worded, according to what has been discussed in the mailing list)"

I was invited to add an agenda item for discussion, and this is the
subject that I'm hoping that the SC will clarify, which arises from
multiple past discussions about Windows screenshots. Given the claimed
legal sensitivity of the issue, and the claimed legal liability
arising from use of Windows screenshots, I feel it is indeed a valid
matter to put before the SC for some official guidance/decisions.

I fully agree with Italo here. The discussion here at the list (and even you 
comment right now) is focused on the legal implications and what the SC would 
think of it. Your wording for the agenda item is much broader and requests a 
general decision on the screenshots independent from possible legal 
implications.

For agenda item 2: a very basic rule for questions to the SC should be that the 
question should be crystal clear and not be changed half a day before the SC's 
decision. At the moment I don't even know anymore what the actual question is.

regards,

André



-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


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.