<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486#c16">Comment # 16</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_UNCONFIRMED " title="UNCONFIRMED - UI: Branding: LibreOffice Personal edition" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=134486">bug 134486</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:klasse@partyheld.de" title="Johnny_M <klasse@partyheld.de>"> Johnny_M</a> <pre>I agree. "Community Edition" would have been better, if any distinction is desired. And I also think that the "intended for individual/personal" use is misleading. This is only about the lack of professional support after all (and pointing out that there are supported LO *installations* (not *editions*) out there), not any lack of functionality compared to another edition of LO, of which there is none. (Unless re-branded.) Nor due to limitations on installation due to licensing. This all is already stated in the release notes after all, which is where this topic belongs, IMHO. And the volunteers promoting LO have a point here, too. I don't think they re-compile LO to change the "edition" or the "intention". They support LO in other ways than contributing code. By the way, has any contributor organization sourced Inkscape from a professional support provider, to be able to edit the LO logos, etc.? ;)</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>