Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable


On a upside-down view, my proposal is to have a LibreOffice "as-is" for
download from TDF website as

Download LibreOffice from Collabora (and have C'bra brand/splash)
Download LibreOffice from CIB (and have CIB brand/splash)

2 packages, gratis, open source, same software, no fancy edition, no
enterprise chevrons.

User choose (click for d/l) what looks better for him.

If that doesn't solve the income issues of the ecosystem, it
nevertheless brings the ecosystem companies in front of the user. A
"ad-sense-like" splash display on each time user starts the software.

Olivier (who is sensible to the issues raised)

Em 13/07/2020 08:08, Justin Luth escreveu:
I think the best solution probably lies in just using simple branding of
"LibreOffice", and "LibreOffice LTS" for eco-system branding.


As many have already said, LibreOffice Personal implies licensing -
which simply isn't true, and so is a particularly bad term.

LibreOffice Community edition implies crippleware - which currently is
not true, and is not the intended direction. So also a poor term.

The factual distinction currently between TDF LibreOffice vs Eco-system
versions is rolling releases vs Long Term Support releases. Since
"LibreOffice Rolling" would hold no meaning for most people, it is best
to go with the common suggestion to just stick with "LibreOffice". LTS
is a fairly common term for business-focused open-source, and thus
"LibreOffice LTS / supported by XXX" provides a branding distinction
that immediately conveys confidence and desirability to the business
sector.


On a related topic, I also wanted to comment on the underlying tone that
some segments are using LibreOffice, but not contributing. I think that
is hard to measure because open-source is a very large field, and in my
opinion, anyone who invests well in open-source anywhere should have the
moral right to use all open-source products. So for example, a company
that supports a lot of code development for GIMP shouldn't be shamed for
not contributing/donating directly to LibreOffice even if they heavily
use it.  For me, it made most sense to "pay" for our open-source use as
a volunteer LibreOffice developer.

Justin



-- 
Olivier Hallot
LibreOffice Documentation Coordinator
Comunidade LibreOffice
Rio de Janeiro - Brasil - Local Time: UTC-03:00
http://tdf.io/joinus

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

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.