Talk:IBM Lotus Symphony

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Symphony for iPhone[edit]

IBM announced in January 2008 that Symphony will be ported for iPhone. I see it's not in the article.--Lester 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And not in the App Store either. --Aizuku (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory release dates?[edit]

Am I missing something, or does this article claim that this suite was first released in both 2007 and 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeAvailableName (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenOffice.org[edit]

Is IBM Lotus Symphony a fork of OpenOffice.org?173.58.64.64 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It is based on code from OO.o 1.1.4 but has since then diverged from OO.o, so yes. --Aizuku (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Availability of a 'Fix Pack' be mentioned under 'Versions' or otherwise.[edit]

IBM has released a bug fix Fix Pack for Version 3.0 of IBM Lotus Symphony [1]. I think this should be mentioned just after version '3.0' under the versions section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colablizzard (talk • contribs) 14:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lotus Symphony Document 3.0B2.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Lotus Symphony Document 3.0B2.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing Discussion[edit]

The text about the licensing links between Symphony and Openoffice.org does not seem quite right to me. When I read the H-Online article it talks about early versions of Symphony using the SISSL license, rather than "a special arrangement between IBM and Sun". Does anyone have citations that would help get this section of the text more accurate? ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on IBM Lotus Symphony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have beta 0.8. Was it always based on openoffice?[edit]

I have beta 0.8. Was it always based on openoffice? If not, then at which version did it change?

Family Guy Guy (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]