That's true. And, in my understanding, what OO did, falls exactly in paragraph b and d. The license doesn't describe what is the "Appropriate Legal Notices" and OO provided a description for it: its logo and its trademark.
If you look at the repo, it looks like the did fail to include author attributions, as far as I can see. The source files need to say they were originally written by OO. That's what author attribution means.