Sorry, but I give up

Just a note about this:

We have discussed the matter at length at the time and, while there have been a case of miscommunication and different opinions, the specific matter of stating “X is an enterprise version of LibreOffice” on the app store, the actual term “LibreOffice Enterprise” was not found, discussed or used at all in that context, had zero (0) influence on the general legal matters at hand at the time or currently.

The majority of the board that sent that letter, after having warned Michael that we had to take actions on the relevant legal statements we received, did not consider the use of “X is an enterprise version of LibreOffice” as being the same thing as sporting a “LibreOffice Enterprise” logo/statement so we did not contact you for that.

The solution to the matter was very simple as it can be seen even today, eg: “X is an enterprise-ready office suite based on LibreOffice technology…”, that in my opinion is OK as it states a similar thing, without stating that it’s a different software, and of course if should state that X provides enterprise services and support.

Then if X is actually a different software which provides features that LibreOffice doesn’t have it’s an entirely different matter but at the time I was not aware of that being the case.

The attorney in question has not been “misinformed”, the attorney has been asked to check the compliance of the corresponding app store pages following the expiry of the trademark license.
No instructions have been given to look at or not look at something to ensure that the attorney would do an objective and impartial job and to ensure that nobody could claim that there has a preferential treatment as it would have gone against the application of the arm’s length principle recommended in the legal documents we received.

The attorney reported the findings that have been shared with Michael, as they were, together with an additional explanation complementing the previous warnings that unfortunately these were steps we had to take.

These are the facts supported by evidence.

If you want to claim that in your opinion I was one of the person involved in a misuse of TDF funds then you should report it to our legal team, the auditors and the supervisory authorities, together with the evidence supporting your claim if you have any, to complete the 2022 audit and to see if they share your opinion.

Hi y’all,

I was relieved to see others apparently catching up on a number of long-running issues now. It’s a shame that Paolo still feels compelled to continue insisting on his fantasy stories, like e.g.:

In case anyone wonders where to look, should those details be shared with the trustees eventually: the firm engagement letter says “The Document Foundation”, not “only Thorsten and Cor”, and so did the board decision to hire them. And on and on it goes, of course implausible CoI accusations had to be added, or the absence of proof, that is proof of absence…

I just wish everyone here would instead reflect on why @italovignoli wants to resign, and come together & prove him wrong - that actually we can overcome the differences, and work together for the best of TDF, and LibreOffice.

Cheers, Thorsten

Then I guess we’ll have to discuss how and where to publish the evidence.

Taking in consideration this:

and this:

and reading from the evidence that we received from the law firm, whose contract was disputed as it was obvious due to past experiences what would have happened, the first thing you and Cor did is to ask for advice on matters in which you were in CoI hiding that from the rest of the board.

Please do check your email archive to refresh your memory to find plenty of evidence including, as one of the last and most egregious cases, Cor sending with only you in copy legal statements he then discussed with the law firm over the phone while in CoI, without an approved budget or mandate and without informing the board.

Only the new board became aware of what the 2 of you did as we challenged the invoice you left to us to pay.
This board managed to limit the damage removing a good chunk of the costs that, as the lawyer stated, should have been 3 times more than what we paid.

That expenditure has been considered a misuse of TDF’s funds by the auditors so that is yet another issue you created that we need to address.

It would be great if you check the evidence you also have before defining my statements “fantasy stories”.

I agree on this but if nobody ever takes responsibility for or even admit that they made mistakes then it doesn’t help in fixing the issues.

Finally there is a board that actually tackles the issues that the previous board didn’t fix and takes the necessary difficult decisions but then we can still see statements that imply that the lawyers have been mislead so as a consequence we might be acting on the wrong advice.

I would have liked to avoid pointing out yet another one of your mistakes but as the matter got raised again we should agree that if you or Cor would have managed to get a different opinion from that law firm you would have used it.

So let’s all agree that the statements and advices from several top lawyers are correct and let’s work together to implement the fixes that our legal team suggested and will suggest.

As you had access to all the lawyers, the relevant legal statements and advises as well as having discussed with lawyers what is needed to conclude the matter in relation to your company, you can lead by example and provide all the information you know you should provide even today.

That would be the best indicator you could provide to the whole community that you are genuinely willing to help solving the issues we need to fix.