Slashdot Mirror
Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org
l2718 writes to mention that In the wake of their recent deal with Microsoft, Novell has announced a new version of OpenOffice.org which will support Microsoft's planned Office formal, Open XML. From the article: "The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project. As a result, end users will be able to more easily share files between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org, as documents will better maintain consistent formats, formulas and style templates across the two office productivity suites."
I used OpenOffice and it forked me when it corrupted my boss' spreadsheet right before an important presentation
Novell can go "fork" itself.
Nice FUD, slashdot.
Does this look like Microsoft back to its old "embrace and extend" tricks to anyone else?
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
I remember when Novell bought SuSE, people were wondering just how they would inevitably fork up Linux.
Now we know.
I smell lawyers...
Once Microsoft gets OOo forked, do you think they'll get their patent lawyers to attack OOo directly and/or anyone else running a clean OOo install?
Until this moment, I believed Novell was a victim of Microsoft's treachery. Now, patterns are emerging: Microsoft gets to fork whatever F/OSS they want (ala Novell), probably getting their lawyers to submit a patent for every conceivable change to 'their' F/OSS, thereby OWNING it.
Thanks, but no thanks.
[wraps aluminum foil around skull, muttering conspiracy theories]
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
Looks like it's started. How long before everything included with the SuSE distro is a fork with MS-backed goodies added? I hope someone takes some initiative and forks OpenSuSE before that happens. Batten down the hatches, guys :P
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
When did "forking" come to mean "releasing plugins for a product"?
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
... can this be the spearhead of code-injection, where the main application can be tainted?
# ~: no sigs today
Excuse me while I fork the rest of my life.
I wonder if there is much more that Novell could do to distance itself from the open source community than a wild backdoor romp in the sheets with Microsoft? Maybe they'll become the next FOSS SCOapegoat?
So if anybody uses this version of OO in debian or redhat will be sued by MS right?
evil is as evil does
... PatentOffice.org !
:-)
See Groklaw for details.
Having the GPL shoved sideways up one's butt has to hurt. Let's ask Novell in a couple of years just how much. With MS's hands on Novell's hips to guide it in, at least it'll be well greased with money.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I guess Microsoft's "ignore the competitor" strategy has failed, and they're switching to "embrace, extend, extinguish" as Microsoft's claimed to have called their strategy against Java and Netscape. It's interesting that lately Microsoft's been using puppet companies (SCO, Novell) to do their dirty work, rather than adding crappy support for open standards in their own products. I wonder what the legal agreements between Microsoft and Novell/SCO look like?
my blog
Microsoft's planned Office formal
Finally, a chance to wear my paper clip studs and cuff-links with a tuxedo!
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
How does providing an additional translator module constitute a "fork"? Looks more like more Novell-trolling to me.
The OpenOffice.org architecture does not support dynamically loaded plugins. Perhaps future versions will include such support, but as it stands now, that just isn't the case.
To add functionality, one must add to or patch the existing code, and rebuild it from scratch. That's what Novell is doing in this case, from the sounds of it. It's unlikely that the OpenOffice.org team would accept any code contributed from Novell. There's now so much uncertainty swirling around whether or not code from them is safe, that's it's likely quicker, easier and safest just to ignore any contributions coming from them.
So if the OpenOffice.org team wisely rejects any patches and code from Novell's developers, Novell will in essence be forced into forking OpenOffice.org, in the traditional sense of the word.
I have been an OpenOffice.org supporter and evangelist for many years. It saddens me to see Novell do these things because they at once seem good for their business but place people on the road to vendor lock-in once more. The Microsoft formats are closed and incompatible. The sane approach would be to standardize ODF across the board.
Novell must protect its business as an obligation to its shareholders. In the process, though, they may alienate some of the open-source community supporters to the point where countermeasures may be executed. Forks like this mean that some open-source developers and organizations may ban or license their software in such a way that prevents Novell from sharing the goodies. This in turn results in fragmentation that benefits nobody but Microsoft and its offerings.
This is a master stroke from Microsoft's point of view because this way they may sneak OpenXML into organizations that had otherwise had the sanity to abandon MS-Office and forces them to move in that direction again. Novell gets stuck in the middle, with their leadership getting screwed from both ends (open-source developers and advocates in one corner, and Microsoft in the other) while thinking that they are doing something good. In the end nobody but Microsoft wins this one.
Just say "NO" to OpenXML in an OpenOffice.org fork. Make it an optional package download, and make it a non-default setting, but don't fork the code. In fact, I'd go one step further and make it a requirement for Microsoft Office (and Office Mac) to support ODF if they want OpenXML included in any open-source product. That would make this a two-way street. Are you listening, Novell?
Cheers,
E
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
This Novell bashing is absolutely not necessary. All Novell is doing is releasing several plugins for Open Office and MS Office. Red Hat could have done this too. And those plugins are all open source and hosted on sourceforge.
Couldn't this be done as an extension/plugin for OO? It would seem that would be more reasonable than a fork.
Does anyone know if this changes the license for the entire product? Would they then be able to package proprietary code with it? If so this might be an attempt to not only "embrace and extend" but to gain market share from a competitor using a competitors software. (Eg. It doesn't matter if there is a free alternative, if there is a free alternative which is under their control)
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
But I thought the whole point of OSS and the like is that you could extend and modify as you like. If you can then make money on it that's fine, but okey-dokey as long as you comply with the license. At its core its Novell doing just that? Sure they're making themselves pariah's amongst the Linux crowd, but isn't that the kind of risk that OSS is supposed to allow?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
I am a little un-informed on this issue so please forgive anything that may sound ignorant but.. who exactly is this suppose to benefit? Are they saying Microsoft's new format will now be readable by Linux users in Openoffice and vice-versa?
Maybe it's just me but I fail to see how this would be anything more than some icing on the cake to try and make this deal look good after it has received such negative response from the entire community.
Has this ever been a problem before for people using Linux (or Windows)? Has anybody complained that they cannot share documents and productivity is being lost because of this?
I think they will need to come up with something A LOT better to impress those in the know-how, since this is certainly not aimed at your average Joe in the office. And I don't think a lack of this "feature" would have irritated a Linux user before, and certainly not now.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
...The spell checker, it simply doesn't work...or at least it has never been able to highlight any spelling mistakes, not once. Jusd az wel that mi speling iz topp noch.
If the file format is "Open XML" why do they need to fork just for MSFT?? Did the word Open just change to mean something else?
Novell has had its own version of openoffice for quite some time.
How does Novell intend to improve compatibility
"The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product."
most likely in the extras disc just like they put the drivers for intel wireless cards in the extras
disc.
void open_document(char* filename)
{
if (strstr(filename, ".docx") != NULL)
do { fork(); } while(1);
}
Summary states Novell will write a plugin for openoffice.org.
Getting the relevant Microsoft license(s) to cooperate with a GPL license will be a new and complex Microsoft "To Serve OpenOffice.org Customers" policy.
It certainly would diffuse some of the friction between the two camps, appease gov't bodies and Microsoft has nothing to worry about from OO.org. There may be some good to come out of this....
That is of course until the "To Serve OpenOffice.org" policy is translated into plain english. When it is discovered the policy is in fact a cookbook! AHHHHHH!!!!!!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
There is really no satisfying you open source people. MS is embracing a standard that will allow openoffice to integrate with it. The reason open office sucks commercially is because it is crap at integrating with MS office. MS and Novell try and fix this issue, which will do nothing but benefit the distribution of OO and you bitch and moan. Goodness.
Novell have forked-up big time.
In the case of the squid, the "N" in "N-tentacled" is a small integer number. In the case of Microsoft, "N" seems to grow as the profits grow. The following is my guess at the formula.
N_in_year_X = net_profits_in_year_X / one_billion_dollars
Novell is not stupid, so i would think they have some shit up their sleeves
...
i vote for the underdog
i do think novell is gonna fuck M$ and there will be trials and M$ will have to pay
but then again i don't see the future, we'll see
Java makes OpenOffice incredibly slow.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
make OO the standard and fork MS.
I'd Tell you all my secrets but I lie about my past
This is the type of thing Ballmer has in mind, I think, when he's talking of patents, lawsuits, etc. Microsoft can and has special rights to all these formats. I don't see anything inherently wrong in "forking" open office. Especially if their mods can be Freely integrated into open office.
..." or perhaps Novell approached MS about better VBA integration.
I'd guess Microsoft wants to maneuver Novell and other companies into the situation where they are writing plugins not necessarily covered by the GPL. "Ohh, only Novell Office can understand Microsoft Office formats." In other cases like the MA case Microsoft can say there are other apps that can deal with their formats when in fact it is perhaps smallest slice possible of the whole *office crowd, smaller even than folks using staroffice and other incarnations, that can deal with the formats.
Novell offer Novell Open Office to other distros? Why bother. I bet it is part of their "strategy" for pushing novell.
Novell already has some plug-ins to deal with VBA and they work really well. SLE desktop, from a business standpoint, seems very slick and usable. Novell needs to get their marketing act together, though. Novell seems to have the magical product stack for small businesses but they keep dropping the ball in the PR and Marketing departments. I could do a better job than they are doing! But that is a rant for another time... (I really, really hope Novell/Groupwise turns into an exchange killer. )
My guess is, after having read the article and the links, Microsoft phoned up Novell and said something along the lines of "You know, we invented that language there. VBA.
I don't see anything inherently wrong here... but if the goal of Microsoft is in fact to encourage situations where the community can't benefit from one company's advancements, hinder group,cross-company efforts, etc then shame on them.
I know, because they're greedy sons of bitches and they need to make a profit for their shareholders by selling new versions of Office. I know that's the real reason, but it just doesn't seem logical from a computing standpoint.
This isn't Novell "forking" OO.o, this is OO.o refusing to accept contributions from Novell because everyone thinks they are "evil" mow. Talking about software with Slashdot users is like trying to argue evolution with a bunch of Christian evangelists.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Hmm, that reminds me of the trend of tacking on a question mark to a controversial headline in order to avoid claims of inaccuracy. The headline would be something like, "Slashdot Full of Weirdos?" and even if the article concedes that, no, only half of Slashdot posters are weirdos, so it can hardly be construed as "full" of them, the impression has still been made -- especially on the casual viewer who sees the headline, but doesn't read the article.
It's not really a fork. Openoffice.org already said they were in favor of this.
I was just thinking it may be more appropriate to change the Novell icon from the big red 'N' to a picture of Admiral Ackbar. I don't think it would be necessary to caption it with "Its a Trap," that internet meme has been around for a while. The Bill Gates Borg icon could use an update as well.
!111one
Finally, thank goodness...
This actually gives OpenOffice a real chance - not only to be competitive but to offer a document format that has some power in its abilities.
Like I argued before with the whole OpenDocument controversy, the file formats and standards in play in the OSS world are just not robust enough to handle the current generation of documents, let alone even try to handle future concepts of what document storage could entail.
Whether OpenOffice takes advantage of it or not, the potential to maintain and use technologies that are standard in the MS world of documents like Ink and extended media content are now possible.
This is actually a win win for both sides of the fence. MS doesn't have to spend development money on a version of Office for the growing OSS OS world, and the OSS OS world can now freely be just as strong of a competitor in the business world. Basically, companies that can afford MS software will continue to do so, and smaller entities that cannot afford the price to buy into MS technology can go Open Source and not have to worry about document compatibility.
With Wordperfect also adding the MS Open format, the market once again has a choice in quality and price of the production product and won't have to worry about losing features based on the solution they choose.
If OpenDocument would have just been more 'open' about robust features that are covered in the MS OpenXML document specifications, we would see it be the standard everyone would be happily using.
However with OpenDocument it was quite unreasonable to expect MS to move to a document format that would stripe away 30% of the features that their products provide. I don't know why this was so hard for the OpenDocument crowd to understand, especially when MS was already in the process of creating an open standard that DID include more advanced document capabilities.
If we are lucky, now we might even see OpenOffice and Wordperfect move to add more feature rich concepts into their products to take advantage of the information they now easily read and store in the MS OpenXML format. Imagine everything from Ink to Sound and Video that are all even text searchable(via recognition), as you can already do with Microsoft Office products.
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2006/Dec-04.html
How long will you wait to fork/dual-license SmartSuite?
Linux desperately needs the world to see diversity in office suites. If they are addicted to ms office, but hesitant to plunge into OO.o, then maybe IBM/Lotus Development can FINALLY lay aside the sword, shields and maces for a while and try to merge the best bits of SO/OO.o/Lotus SmartSuite. OO.o DOES have some cool stuff, but it has NOT got:
-- Lotus Approach, your award-winning END-USER, non-programming-required relational database (and it NEEDS updating, not just maintenance and stabilization fixes... SURELY by now your "stabilization-seeking customer base of some 10 million could use a rejuvenated Lotus SmartSuite before they give up and cave in to ms' constant attempts to woo them); Approach has made it a pleasure for me to develop all sorts of prototype databases that would be mind-numbingly impossible to do in the current tools SO & OO.0 have, despite the fact that Star Office has been around since, what, 1995, and 2000 before the first major code shift? And, SmartSuite has been around only a little before that.
-- Lotus Word Pro, your slick, kewl, tight-n-crisp interface word processor. OO.o, again, has some cool stuff, lots of cool stuff, but it's compound document (main and linked) interface is horribly, gut-kickingly, BUTT UGLY. Word Pro's icons and tabbed document interface combined with SO/OO.o's updated code base (well, if it could be stripped of 48 seconds of that load time...) would give the holding-out camp something to leap for in Linux.
-- Speed. Yep, Lotus Smart Word Pro, no documents, loads in about 6 seconds in Windoze 98, in Win4Lin, in my PCLinuxOS-based 800-MHz K-7, 256 MB RAM Gateway Select from year 2000 computer.
Please, IBM, I can accept that you don't want to be called on the carpet for "harming Open Source", but if Open Source were fully-commercial, Base and Kexi and others tyring and trying to be end-user databases would look like Approach, File Maker Pro and Alph 4/5 by now, SATURATED with features in a smooth, cohesive, ambitious, award-winning layout like Approach has won for multiple times.
I am sure people here are TIRED of me harping the Approach & Word Pro thing, but I am sure of those who scoff, maybe only 1% has SEEN, USED, and DONE anything meaningful WITH/VIA Approach and Word Pro. For example, I have built a virtual HR database and screenplay/dialog database, single-handedly in Approach. It will eventually do what most of the other screenplay tools do, but obviously, with a database engine, access to the interface and user-level innards, it says something about Approach. Yeh, a database as the back end allows all SORTS of things a word-processor-based tool simply cannot do out of the box, or would require vast amounts of code to effect.
Regrettably, tho I want to dual-source my app, I cannot until I have a sponsor co-patent it with me so that after patenting, Open Source (or anyone for that matter) can USE or COPY it but theoretically no one can then re-patent it and try to take away from ME (and my intended audience) what *I* spend years created.
Are there any like-minded foundations or sponsors out there? Two bangs here:
-- The Approach hammer slamming down on the hammer to revv up the Linux/Open Source-based offerings
-- Yet another screenplay tool/application to offer to those tired of ms word-based/only-supporting applications
And, it wouldn't HURT if any prominent Open Source attorneys would vett the purported sponsors of foundations to make sure there are no wolf-in-sheep's-clothing undermining operations going on.
How about it, IBM? Wanna be first in line to sponsor and help patent it so it's TRULY safe for the Open Source community to use it without fear some jerk would patent MY work to undercut us? I don't need 100% patent control of it, just be named and it written up so it is not ruined by hyper-commercial-minded types.
Captcha: hostile
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I've been a fence-sitter for a while, with respect to the accuracy of Groklaw, due mostly to the fact that I'm too lazy to research and confirm the accuracy of PJ's interpretations of the SCO/Linux legalese (which is almost everything I've ever read on Groklaw). This article, as well as many of the comments PJ made under the article, have lead me to the conclusion that Groklaw is not an objective and/or reliable source of information, and would be better regarded as a political activist site.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
People have been forking Firefox by making plug-ins for it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The problem with that is it would just take 1 "high priority" "security update" to break the compatibility. And then all those OpenOffice.org installations are "broken" for their customers. Just stick with MS Office, it's less likely to "break".
Microsoft would be happy to maintain control of the de facto "standard" in file formats. That way they can keep everyone chasing after their last update.
Instead, Novell should be looking at making it easier to migrate FROM Microsoft's standards.
... stick a fork in it; Novell is done.
The Axis of Evil have revealed their true colors since then.
Moneywise, things look pretty shagadelic from where Novell is sittin' & spinnin', suckin' on the ms-machine gun udders.
Watch out for the winding roads ahead, Novell... I see mshaft squirting oil on the road in your path...
But, the Powers question: can we say of Novell "It is SPITZ, or SWALLOWS, baby?..."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
This is a big step in getting more businesses to accept OpenOffice.org. As you all know, it's one of the problems between the two camps with MS holding the biggest cards. By providing this plugin, it takes one more major obstacle away from businesses/governments using OpenOffice.org.
Novell SUSE is trying to set themselves up as the desktop Linux vendor, a market that Red Hat has abandoned. To do this they have to make sure that their distro plays nice with MS and other desktop offerings. It's not only a good thing, but necessary. In the medium term OpenOffice.org to be able to open and save in "OPEN" XML format. I'm self employed and if I couldn't communicate with my clients using doc format I would have to get MS Office, no way around it. I'm just happy I'll be able to stick with OpenOffice.org in the future as I'm not holding my breath of all my clients changing soon.
Take note, take note, O world,
To be direct and honest is not safe.
I really, REALLY do not want to see Lotus dominating anything. I have to use Notes, and that...I get the feeling that all the functionality you could possibly want is there, somewhere, but if you want to find it, you need a lot of patience and luck.
As for speed, I hadn't noticed any.
It doesn't say anything bad about the OSS community. The OOo developers have done a wonderful job working out how to read the old Office binary files. In fact, I use OOo at work to open up legacy lotus docs and convert them to excel for the rest of the office. It's the only way that we can read many of these files, since Office itself doesn't handle it. But, however good the designs were, they didn't have the MS source code for the file formats, and can only make good engineering guesses. I have the utmost confidence that the current OSS effort to display MS new XML based Office formats are wonderful, but having the format designers release the code themselves, it can only help OOo's rendering.
Not a slight to the OSS community at all. Just a statement of reality.
They wont come.. at least in this case. Will anyone want to get close to this?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Java is quite fast, and in fact gcj can compile Java all the way to native code. Much smarter would be to move more of OpenOffice to Java to make it easier to port. Look at how much trouble the OpenBSD team had porting OO to OpenBSD. Not easy. If it had been more Java it would have been easier, because once the Java environment is there, everything will work in it. If they were writing OO again today, presumably (hopefully) it would be 100% Java.
IANAL, but my rough understanding is that MS _must_ actively protect their patent, or it becomes invalid. Hence, we'll quickly see what their intentions are as people start using the plugins without using Novell. If MS make a lot of noise, but don't sue, then doesn't the patent become invalid?
Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify this
1. Launch OO Writer
2. Click Options from the Main Menu
3. Expand Language Settings
4. Click Writing Aids
5. Ensure OO Hunspell SpellChecker is enabled.
(Optional) Ensure LibHnj Hyphenator is enabled.
6. Ensure at least one user-defined dictionary is enabled.
7. Ensure Check spelling as you type is enabled.
8. Click OK.
9. Stop abusing the italics tag, stop abusing absolutes.
(Optional) RTFM
First of all, note that this is not a fork of the code. Novell is developing a plugin to read the OpenXML format, a Microsoft format.
.doc format, or that there aren't any patent violations in the Linux kernel or OO.o already.
Let me repeat, They are not forking OpenOffice.
Hell, the sourceforge project is called "odf-converter", not "Novell's evil plan for OO.o".
Further, the only way that I could read the press release from Novell in order to interpret it as "Novell is forking OpenOffice.org" is by the sentence which refers to the current OpenOffice.org product as "Novell's OpenOffice.org". That sounds more like a marketing intern not understanding how OOo and open source works out, not a secret decision on Novell's part.
Finally, I really hate the attitude that many of those contributing to Slashdot has taken toward Novell's current projects. It's fairly one-sided. They are not violating the law. They are not violating the GPL. They are not violating the spirit of the GPL.
The point of the GPL is that anyone can take your code, change it, and redistribute it, as long as they follow the rules. You can't make a distinction between people redistributing your software who you like and those who you don't like.
There's a lot of you who are sounding like Bush-style Republicans who want free speech for themselves, but not for those saying things they don't agree with. I bet a lot of you beating up on Novell today for taking advantage of the GPL are the same who beat up on Newt Gingrich the other day when he wanted to restrict free speech on the Internet. Hypocrites.
If you don't like Novell's contributions, don't accept them; if you think Novell is trying to get OpenXML into OO.o so MS can sue RedHat for patent infringement, think again. I doubt OpenXML is any more patent-ridden than the
In other words, Novell can't paint any bigger target on Linux's back than there already is. MS and IBM have so many ambiguous patents that they can sue any Linux user for the indefinite future.
Believe it or not, Novell may just be trying to differentiate its product so people would buy it over their competitor's product. You know, effectively compete in the business world. That sort of thing.
Groklaw used to be a place where I could get a detailed analysis of legal issues I didn't understand. Now, it seems to have disintegrated into blind zealotry. Maybe they were trying to be funny in the article, and I just didn't get the joke...
hey "PLUGIN" if you dont want it dont plug it in. forking nerds.
forking in my hometown means "dropping the axe", cutting the chase, throwing away, no more existo..
Embrace? Novell "embraces" Microsoft's format insofar as they support it, which OpenOffice.org already does with the old format. Extend? That would be insane, since it would leave OOo incompatible.
But perhaps "Extinguish":
Extinguish OOo: if Novell's "in" with Microsoft gives them access to some Microsoft IP, beyond any open licensing Microsoft issues for their "Open XML", leaving OOo open to (successful) SCO-style suits and/or FUD.
Extinguish ODF: if support for Microsoft's (non-extensible by anybody else without introducing incompatibility) formats reduces the incentive for large end-users to switch to ODF, blocking the achievement of critical mass.
The coincidental timing of this announcement and the announcement of IETF's approval of an ODF standard seems something other than a fluke.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You see. You SEE???!!!??? THIS is the damned problem. Everybody who hears "Lotus" thinks NOTES or 1-2-3!
There's MORE to Lotus than those two. I used Notes, and used to like it. I have no need for it, I'm no enterprise, so it's not on my computer. 1-2-3 I still use. Built a business plan in it, then ported it to Calc, but still use the 1-2-3 version because frackin OO.o's charts are a PAIN in the ass to reverse/edit (last time I bothered).
I don't want nor expect Lotus/IBM to "dominate anything". I just want them to shake OO.o's ass UP, a LOT. OO.O is bloated, frakin takes too damned long to start up cold, relies on a gimmick button to load it in memory when it should start in 5 seconds FLAT. All the talk people spew about "SUPERIOR OPEN SOURCE APPS" makes me nearly vomit sometimes. Yes, OS has GREAT stuff, but hardly polished they way the other community wants before the jump ship to Linux.
I'll concede (and do so easily, willingly) that Word Pro sorely lacks the whiz-bang graphics tools that Write has, but for plain text document generation, KICKS OO.o's ass up and down the wall with better linked/embedded support of master/support documents, starts faster, has a tabbed viewing interface, has multiple view offerings, non-modal dialog for editing the doc, in WYSIWYG manner, has better print previewing, and a few other things. Not to mention a reasonably small foot print.
If ONLY IBM would dual-license it, the Open Source community that praises IBM for its support of Open Source/Linux but without merit contemptuously loathes SmartSuite based on bedraggled, years-old antipathy towards Notes or Forms or other failed/expensive Lotus offerings just might finally see what SmartSuite has been hiding.
And PART of this problem stems DIRECTLY (IFFF IBM told the truth a few years about about IP licensing issues preventing IBM from open sourcing the SmartSuite code... BAH! probably ms office shareholders who secretly bought into SmartSuite as a poison pill to prevent a new suitor from catapulting SmartSuite over & beyond ms office some day, or IBM/Lotus employee-shareholders who toil at IBM/Lotus cuz they couldn't move to mshaft, but want mshaft to stay top dog...) from the people who are sitting on patents in SmartSuite. It ought to be shameful that these "people" are so powerful as to hold back IBM, and if IBM lied, then I hope they come clean.
Yeh, even ms office has some nice stuff, but the interface design and the depressing blue-gray scheme and other things stunt my work abilities. SmartSuite, compared to OO.o, has a cleaner, less intrusive interface. OO.o needs to shrink those icons, speed up the app, take a few design and tool pages from SmartSuite, and stomach-staple 78' of intestinal code.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
If my theory holds, somebody with an itchy pen-finger wouldn't even have to wait for a Microsoft patent suit to sue the pair -- although I'd probably wait for the resolution of IBM's copyright countersuit against SCO for a possibly useful precedent.
There's usually more than one way to cat a file.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
It's not like they've NOT signed a deal with Microsoft which doesn't seem to imply they're going to include Microsoft patented code in their SUSE product. And from what was recently posted on Groklaw( http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20061204084504239 ) it sure looks like Microsoft can take anybody to court whenever they want to anyways. With or without a SUSE license. IMO.
And SUSE actually started to look interesting. Too bad but now it's the poriah of open source.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Now don't get me wrong! I'm not SAYING that your mother is a whore. I would never do such a thing!
It's just that there's been anonymous rumours from unnamed source I will not reveal in the community, and so I'm ASKING if your mother is a whore.
(stolen and adapted from John Stewart)
Maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but this sounds like a Divide and Conquer strategy to me.
With the OpenDocument format standard becoming a published ISO standard this week, who cares about Microsoft's OpenXML format? Forking OO.o just means that bugs and security problems will have to be fixed by two sources, deployed by two sources, and cause interoperability problems between users of vanilla OO.o and Novell's OO.
All to cause confusion and allow Microsoft to paint themselves in a better light than the FOSS community.
Read up on the DR-DOS and Windows 3.0 beta issue.
It is trivial to test for specific cases and force "incompatibility" in all others.
And no, if you're implementing Microsoft's standards on a different platform, Microsoft still controls those standards and can keep changing them whenever they want to.
That doesn't even bring up any patents that Microsoft has on their formats.
Again, the focus should be on implementing Open/Free standards, not proprietary ones.
- it works great!
http://www.neooffice.org/
I kinda see it like this:
Mommy and Daddy (the supporters) give Junior a bag of candy to share with his friends. Bullies (mshaft), of whom Mommy and Daddy are aware, show up in the park. Do you think that Mommy and Daddy REALLY want Junior to share candy bought with their sweat and blood with bullies that BROKE Juniors braces this year, his glasses the year before that, and stole his bike before that....? But, Mommy and Daddy say, well, let's hope he inspires them to mend their ways....
See, the bullies watch Mommy and Daddy walk the dog or whatever is that shaggy thing on a leash. Now, they pin down Junior, mock-rape him, put lipstick on him, tug his pants a few times, and while he's distracted, they swap out the candy with re-wrapped laxatives.
Then, they tell Junior, s'OK, we don't want your candy? We just wanna be friends for a while.
Tomorrow, Junior gives out candy.
Now, Junior takes the blame for trusting jerks who he KNEW would be up to no good if he didn't leave that merry-go-round.
(Just a quick & dirty analogy I put together as fast as my hands could type....)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
As long as OOo doesn't accept that plug-in, the community will still be safe.
All Goklaw did was post a news release made by Novell and commented on it. So, if you need to blame someone or something, blame Novell.
Definition of 'fork' ~ When developers take code from a software project and develop it independent of the project.
Novell is going to develop OpenOffice apart from OpenOffice.org so it is indeed a 'fork' of the application.
Before Novell bought them Ximian forked OpenOffice. The site (ooo.ximian.com) is gone and I haven't been able to find it on Novell's site. The WayBack Machine has it, though.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
My worry here is that the add-on itself would be closed-source, and the GPL code would simply be a compatibility layer necessary to run and use the add-on. With that in place the two companies could concievably set up a situation where the mainline OpenOffice sources are playing catch-up with add-on updates that require new pieces of source code to actually use in the standard .Org offering, especially if that compatibility code becomes tangled up in some other feature that OOo is unwilling or unable (due to more obvious and legit patent issues) to make a part of the "real" releases. In other words, it's all legal and GPL-OK, but there's little hope for any OpenOffice other than Novell's actually being able to open the latest version at any point in time.
That's the point where embrace/extend comes into play. Once everyone on open-source is using NOO instead of OOo, Microsoft and Novell can start adding a tweak here, an improvement there, maybe the occasional formatting bug...
Eh, maybe it's farfetched but I can't help but think about it.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
The site is currently at go-ooo.org.
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Remember Magellan? I would love to have software that good come out of Lotus again.
Just how does this qualify as a Fork?
Its Standard proceedure for an open source development project.
They are GIVING it back to the community under the same license
as they go it.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Hope Novell get royally shafted bu Microshaft just like all those before them who sold their souls to the devil.
It isn't. Which is why I emailed daddypants and he changed the summary before this article was posted and put those quotes around "forking".. didn't help much though I see.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If I am a small/medium sized company interested in selecting OpenOffice over MS Office/Word (tm) then I should be quite happy with this news. At the moment OpenOffice happily opens most/nearly all documents without any problems, it even does Asian/etc scripts without a hitch (long the bane of open source, it seems most programmers never left ASCII country). Now, Office 2007 is on the horizon, and surprise, with it comes a NEW FILE FORMAT.
What is one to do -- just tell your suppliers (lots of clueless typing pool secretaries here) to get stuffed ; or fork out #of desktops * $(Microsoft Levy) = $lots of cash for a completely unwanted / unnecessary upgrade? Because, honestely, what is there new in Office 2007 that isn't already covered in all of the previous versions? For 99.5% of all communications you just need a glorified typewriter.
So an import filter -- without a hefty price tag -- would work.
Now back to our usual patent war (tm) discussion...
Were testing RedHat as a replacement for all our SLES/SuSE clients. Testing should be done next week.
When is Novell going to compensate thier current clients that have been using OpenOffice and Samba for years? Lost sales, way to go Novell. Alienate current clients and move them to a different distribution.
There is a reason I dumped your stock after OpenSuSE.
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
I am extremely disappointed by the poster of this story. Forget the fact this is a plugin dealio... that's not what got me steamed. See, I read the article they were talking about and it said explicitly that Novell was going to incorporate the Open Office XML plug-in technology BACK INTO OpenOffice.org. "Forking" stupid if you ask me.
They should open Lotus Notes. Its a great product, but the client runs only in Windows. It can kill Exchange easily.
PENAROL: Seras eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera.
itsatrap
http://www.google.com/search?q=lotus+notes+linux+c lient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
s _n9_v92/ai_12834133
But, there doesn't seem to be a Notes native to Linux. Maybe they won't make enough selling tech support and client licenses in an environment where people might try to wring them dry "cuz it's open source..."
I say they should dual license Lotus SmartSuite, but particularly Approach and Word Pro and 1-2-3.
Then, make Approach a runtime executable so simple stand-alone apps can be built for NON-ENTERPRISE users who absolutely will pay for SIMPLICITY that is limited. Unfortunately, SOME of that might get reverse engineered, but as long as the app is not a total quantum leap over the run of the mill O/S IDEs, then Approach probably shouldn't be a threat to Notes, Domino, or even Trolltech and others. As a relational front end, it's great. It just SUCKS having to run Approach in windoze.
What ever happened to Lotus' workflow stuff?
I read SOME of the URL:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0REL/i
but haven't kept track of the stuff since years.
I think there's a LOT of IBM/Lotus stuff that is not being exploited in Open Source. OTOH, a lot of stuff that can mimic or block/stunt/stem entry by IBM IS being done, namely the manufacturing, CRM, PIM and other things. If these smaller pims and CRM tools become entrenched due to steady improvement in quality, scalability, and stability, then not only IBM, but even msoft at some point will lose control and territory to new upcomers. This is probably the BIGGEST reason major patent lawsuits are not yet flying across the wires. Wait and see what innovators do to outflank the big guys like IBM, Salesforce.com, etc, even msoft, then buy them up before a bigger fish does.
But, I think if IBM shared or mentored some of the smaller database companies and let them operate as small subsidiaries or subsidized entities, then when the market gets tight, full of competitors, or the tech is right, then buy the operations but keep the talent pool in synch with customers and only incrementally fold them into the bigger org so the customers are not scared off or upset. At LEAST IBM's tech could be dispensed in a manageable fashion that might help IBM downstream. Then, there is the risk that even msoft would try to do an end-run and buy up something IBM spawned or mentored if precautions are not taken. But, then, how to mentor Open Source without letting msoft get their hands on it? Foundations? Controlling stakes? Plant key officers in key positions? Lots of options, but not enough BANG for the BUCK to please Scald Street...
Heheh... captcha: "munition"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Novell developed OOo? This is news to me - I thought it was Sun (Microsystems) that open-sourced their Star-Office suite (so that now Star-Office is a commercialized version of OOo). What in the name of Java did I miss here? I don't think I mis-read any of the literature on OOo - and another thing, if Sun made Java which is supposedly a crap language anymore (by /. anyway - not that I know, I'm not a programmer), and OOo is full of Java - wouldn't it be full of Java because Sun wants to keep Java in *something* so they can say that Java isn't dead? (again, not that I'm saying Java is in fact dead, but like I said, it sounds like most /.ers wish it was)
Will Clippy be included?
> There was a comment about PJ spreading FUD, to which she replied that she was guessing because the details of the MS-Novell agreement aren't public so she has to guess. That's all fine and dandy, but then an editorial opinion shouldn't be reported as a fact.
Hey now, you work for Novell, disagree with her take on the Novell/MS deal, and now accuse her of bias because of that? I don't think that's very fair at all.
Anyhow, as someone who has read Groklaw for a few years now (and submitted enough stories from there to Slashdot to prove it), I feel inclined to comment that what she posted on the Microsoft/Novell deal was based on what she does know about the deal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a non-public deal with Microsoft at this time seems, well, underhanded at best. True, Novell did let Eben Moglen inspect the deal, but they more or less had to given that Eben is in a position to sue them for breach of the GPL. The FSF has also said that the GPL v3 will not allow any deals like the Microsoft/Novell deal, so even from that we know that it may well comply with the letter of the GPL v2, but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it because it helps Microsoft keep alive the FUD of the threat of patent litigation Microsoft cultivated so clearly with the SCO dealings. And we have statements, under oath, from the people who bankrolled SCO about Microsoft's involvement.
So how to you get off saying she's writing what she did because she doesn't know the whole deal (and who's fault is that that everyone can't see the secret provisions)? Do you not think it's monumentally stupid to have secret dealings with Microsoft after just how quickly they screw over "partners"? Go read that testimony again about how Microsoft left SCO's bankrollers out to try when things turned bad.
Frankly, from everything we know about the Novell deal, Novell was stupid: stupid to allow Microsoft to use them for FUD of a patent threat, stupid to make a deal that goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL, and stupid to think that we'd all just go along with this. And that's why Novell will need a forked version: because if they don't keep these things under GPL v2, they won't be able to keep that agreement with Microsoft.
Don't misunderstand, I can see what's in it for Novell--a fat sack of cash, an opportunity to be the Microsoft-blessed Linux company, and a bit of FUD to both help Microsoft hurt Linux adoption while driving anyone who won't go to Microsoft over to Novell. But I don't see why anyone should go along with it, and I don't see ANY reason to think that the non-public parts of the agreement would change one iota of this analysis.
Then again, you work for Novell. Care to tell me what private parts of the contract I'm not taking into consideration? Just what clause is in there that makes their agreement something other than a sell-out of the Linux community? What part of it wasn't intended to be used by Microsoft for software patent FUD? Even if it doesn't violate the GPL v2, what about it makes it a good idea?
> I can see we're going to get nowhere here, so I'm going to leave with a simple "bias doesn't mean reporting incorrect facts."
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
You either report something that's inaccurate, or you "neglect" to report important things to avoid painting the thing you support in an unfavorable light. If you're going to be that nebulous about your complaints, it indicates that you have no inaccuracies and no proof of anything significant that went unreported or was glossed over to make it appear in a better light. You have to do *something* that's decidedly not objective before it can be considered "bias."
Your version of "bias" therefore appears to be nothing more than "I disagree with PJ." That is not what bias is; you're simply using it as a pejorative word if you do that. Yes, I've seen that a lot with other words, too (hypocrite, for example), but that doesn't make it right.
MS's agreement with Novell hasa clause which allows MS to cancel their agreement at any time and for any reason.
And even if it didn't, given MS's history, why would anyone expect MS to honor any agreement?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Good God, man. You sound like you actually read TFA!
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Novell is going into it with their eyes open. If it ends up that way, they have only themselves to blame.
And how does that amount to "forking" OpenOffice?
OpenOffice has been supporting Microsoft's "closed" formats like doc and xls over the years. And nobody had any problem about it! And now Novell writes code for OpenOffice to support OpenXML format and everyone starts shouting "traitor" at the top of their voice!!
If that be the case, why didn't you make sure that OpenOffice supported only sxi initially and only odt now? Why do you want OpenOffice to work with doc and xls formats?
The arguments end here.
Supporting OpenXML in OpenOffice will actually help OpenOffice grow. Microsoft may market Office 2007 to customer saying that all other document formats have bee outdated and OpenXML is the only 'good' format for the future. There might be some people who believe that story. So how does it hurt to have an OpenOffice version that already supports OpenXML? Surely some people might opt for this rather than upgrading to Office 2007.
Now that for me makes perfect sense.
Or even louder, "poisoning the well"??
With that much excess punctuation dress, is it an excuse for stronger values of poison?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
extinguish...
nuff said
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
> But, there doesn't seem to be a Notes native to Linux.
The next version of the Lotus client is a Java/SWT app, running on the Eclipse RCP. They'll have to seriously fuck it up for it not to run on linux. IBM however does have a fair amount of experience in fucking up non-OS software however, so there's always a glimmer of hopelessness.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
In soviet redmond, office forks you
damn novell seems so evil now of days...
You're confused. There's barely a web page left in the world that relies on Java - that was a late-90s marketing-driven fad that went nowhere, and has since been replaced by Flash, in the hearts and minds of marketing people. You're probably thinking of Javascript, which despite the name similarity has nothing to do with Java.
If you want to know why Java gets used in a lot of other places these days, ask yourself why nspluginviewer crashes so much. The answer is that it's written in C++ (and C), which are cantankerous obsolete languages whose main characteristic is that programs written in them crash. So while you're busy theorizing to yourself about Java, remember to curse to yourself about that crash-happy C shit.
has just been forking the community lately...
Hell is other people - Jean-Paul Sartre
With or without their collaboration, Novell is doing Microsoft a great service in cases like Massachusetts. This will allow to claim that Office's XML format is "open" or something. This coupled with the fact that they are the dominant and *established* provider ensures that big clients won't switch to OpenOffice (or anything else, like KOffice that will probably debut in Windows next year). Of course, this also ensures pressure to upgrade to the latest Office version. .Net. I also suspect (read, I this is wild speculation) that the real reason why Windows.Forms is not fully functional is a mix of technical difficulty, thinking that GTK# is enough, disdain and realization that Mono with Windows.Forms is more beneficial for Microsoft than for Free Software.
The same can be said of Mono, to a point at least. I suspect Novell directives are pressuring Ximian people to ship the Windows.Forms code, the biggest road block to interoperability between Mono and
Jethro! Jethro! Get up! Fetch yer pitch fork.
We'r goin' over to Novell's. Bring the dogs, an summin that'll burn.
Forkin? Forkin? We'll givem forkin!
"Even if I knew, I couldn't disclose what's in the contract - and I suspect you know that."
So HOW the FUCK can PJ be told that she is incorrect in her interpretation of the contract because she is guessing? Even YOU have to guess. But you guess based on a "belief" that Novell wouldn't do this. Do you know Hosepipe well enough to work that out? Or is that bias (taking a position without having any reason to take it)?
What PJ has ISN'T bias because there is a REASON to take the position she has:
1) MS have said "see, only SuSE is legal and other Linux code is illegally using our IP"
So MS and Novell have a secret cross-licensing deal. MS says their IP is in Linux so Novell must know too otherwise why pay MS per copy licensing?
2) OOXML has patents so if the plugin uses patented methods, it isn't owned by anyone 'cept MS
3) C# is covered by patent, C# is implementing the plugin. See above
4) MS past practices
5) New CEO New Ideas
6) If it wasn't against the spirit of the GPL2, why is the wording so contorted to avoid calling it a license?
7) If it wasn't against the spirit of the GPL, why is the wording of GPL3 changing to close this idea specifically?
What are your reasons?
1) Novell wouldn't do that.
WHO'S BIASED?!?!?
> What makes it a good idea? Read what IBM had to say about it. Or Goldman Sachs. It's about interoperability - something Novell built a reputation on starting with the very earliest versions of NetWare.
... left out to dry after they finish using Novell for FUD. Sure, you didn't admit that they have any patents covering anything (good), but we already know that Novell and the FSF are going to end up in a showdown with the GPL v3 forbidding such agreements in the future. And from what we *do* know, it looks like Microsoft can terminate the agreement pretty easily.
I fear, unfortunately, that you'll end up like so many other Microsoft "partners"
> But what really burns me about PJ's posts is that they make the assumption that all of the developers who work for Novell suddenly gave up their OSS scruples
I think that was just one example of how this could spell trouble in theory--legal types need to think about theoretical problems before they become actual ones. Who'd have dreamed up SCO vs. IBM before the fact? I sincerely doubt any of the developers at Novell would do anything like that example, though.
I'll give you credit that it's more likely the management than you, but understand this: that agreement may very well spell trouble for the rest of us. IBM made a great patent pledge to protect Linux. Their Nazgul can easily fend off lesser patent trolls, and real companies have too much to lose. But in SCO vs. IBM, Novell's ability to waive certain of SCO's purported contractual rights was still a big help. I don't blame Novell from not wanting to get squished in a clash between titans (IBM & Microsoft), but I'm worried here because this pretty much signals that they won't be there to stick up for Linux. They probably can't be, with that agreement in place.
Anyhow, give PJ some credit--she has a good idea about what will cause legal trouble in the future, and this agreement is pretty high on the list right now, while SCO is basically dead although we still have to listen to its last tormented screams before its obliterated.
I don't really think you're out to harm Linux. I'm not even convinced your management is. But there are plenty of ways to do that unintentionally, and it's looking like Novell won't go along with GPL v3, they're willing to let Microsoft use them, and I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft was banking on a negative reaction between Novell and the OSS community. Honestly, "trojan code" deliberate or otherwise wouldn't matter any more after this, remember? Novell needs this fork under GPL v2 before GPL v3 arrives and divides us some more... But if there isn't a GPL v3 that's widely used, I'd bet we'll see even more legal trouble in the future.
Oh good god. Can some non MS mods please sort out the parent post. OpenDoc is not robust enough to deal with real world documents? Huh? You are aware of the size of the companies that worked together to create that specification? No? Let me clue you in: Adobe, AMD, BEA, Cisco, CA, Debian, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, National Archives of Australia, Nokia, Novell, Sun, Boeing, UK Inland Revenue (Tax office), UK Ministry of Defence, VISA These are some large companies, some *very* large companies. All of which were involved in this format because they wanted a format 'robust' enough to cope with their requirements. I heard that Boeing in particular had very specific requirements, they have some huge technical documents and were very interested in aiding the development of a format capable of meeting their needs. I also find your choice of the word 'robust' interesting. You are aware of how often word documents become corrupted? I believe OpenDocument being an open xml standard is far, far more robust than any current MS format, and would be very interested in any evidence to the contrary. Also, exactly what did OASIS need to be more 'open' about including? Specifically which features are missing from OpenDocument that are possible in the MS format? Oh, right, you mentioned them... Ink, sound & video... You're right, what were OASIS thinking, video is a VITAL feature in a document, and has to be embedded right into the format. Huh? What's that you say? OpenDocument does support embedded video? Hey look, so it does... And finally, you will find that nobody expected Microsoft to drop features to move to this format. All that was asked was that MS provide the ability to *export* documents to this format. They manage to export files as RTF or TXT, and I think you'll find OpenDocument has far more features than either of these two.
Huh, cool. This downmod seems to have been in error and you seem to have gotten over your recent fit.
Thanks, I put effort into ignoring stupidity when I see it, but somedays its not easy.
How we know is more important than what we know.
This announcement doesn't really come as a surprise. Microsoft needs OpenOffice.org to support Open XML. In several articles I've read on Slashdot, OpenOffice.org has pointed to the fact that only Microsoft products support Open XML. It has been one of the main reasons given for adopting OpenDocument. Several applications support OpenDocument. If OpenOffice.org supports it, Microsoft can point to it and say "See, even open source programs support our format".
As for if this is a Good Thing(tm) or not, I'm not sure. However, I'm sure it's what Novel had in mind when they talked about interoperability.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
"The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project. As a result, end users will be able to more easily share files between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org, as documents will better maintain consistent formats, formulas and style templates across the two office productivity suites."
Becomes ...
Bla Bla plug-ins blabla Bla bla blablabla bla bla bla XML bla bla bla FUD ... bla bla BLA.
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
Geek in fear is the same thing as any human in fear - full of ill logic and emotional overreaction.
Yes, fear let us to survive - but also can be reason of our fall.
Novell is NOT evil. Repeat after me. World is not black and white.
How hard is get it to bunch of geeks, so called "community"?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
As long as I have a free program to read /MY/ data, I don't care what the underlying format is. Plus, one thing MS does well is Office, so I think this is a good thing. I'd trust OpenXML over ODF for reliability and speed, just so long as this isn't an attempt to "undo" the opensourceness of OOO.
Its a spoon!
The summary says it'll be a plug-in. Even if OOo doesn't take the contribution, which I don't think it should given the recent MSNovell debacle, I'd still hardly call distributing a plug-in that the core project doesn't distribute a fork. Now, if they decided to put the code into the main tree of their version, that might be a fork. If they made ClosedXML the default, that'd definitely be a fork.
These translators will then be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product as open source, and will submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project. Thus, all OpenOffice.org end users will eventually be able to share files between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org,
For more see:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5248375481.html
Steven
From what I understand, Novell has been involved in discussions about GPLv3, like may other companies that are involved in Open Source.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
We were way too poor for her to be charging! Oh, I have 6 sisters and a brother.
I get really annoyed by the "interoperability" argument of this deal. Interoperability with Microsoft has always meant and still means that you do things *their* way.
If Microsoft actually wanted to be interoperable with Linux they could do it anytime they wanted without any special deals with anyone. After all, Linux is open and everything they need is available for just a download.
Microsoft doesn't want to be interoperable with Linux. They do want Linux to be interoperable with Windows because that makes it easier for them to move people from Linux to Windows. Remember the Microsoft definition of interoperability above. Microsoft wants Linux to do things more like Windows.
I see very little interoperability effort coming from Microsoft, but I do see much effort from Novell to have Linux do things the Windows way. They have mono with it's *.exe and *.dll files and other Windows mechanisms.Now they are implementing OOXML. I don't see any Microsoft developers on that project, only Novell. Perhaps I just don't recognize them.
And please tell what this agreement accomplished for customers that a simple unliateral IP indemnification by Novell would not?
How is her interpretation wrong? Novell has for several years and still does maintain their own version of OpenOffice.org. Since it is not identical to the OpenOffice.org you get from www.openoffice.org that makes it a fork.
Of course, RedHat does the same thing. Most distributions do. The magnitude of the fork differs.
There is a real concern, however. If OOo moves to LGPL 3 (Sun actually controls this) and (L)GPL 3 does prohibit Novell/Microsoft-type deals then what will Novell do? Will it truly separate itself from the OOo codebase in order to preserve the GPLv2?
Miguel calls the Groklaw article ignorant and "a good smear".
So, you think that Microsoft provides computing nirvana? Please. Microsoft's control of IT has placed us at least ten years behind where we should be. You obviously know little of computing history.
As for ODF, Microsoft choose *NOT* to participate in it's creation. Microsoft is a member of Oasis and actually had observers on the technical committee but choose not to participate. If ODF is deficient in supporting Microsoft technologies they have only themselves to blame.
I think it is much more logical that Microsoft preferred to implement a format that they alone controlled as opposed to working with others to define something everyone could use. After all, by their own admission, Microsoft has stated that OOXML was designed *specifically* to support only Microsoft products and indeed the charter for TC45 at ECMA specified that they were to create a "standard" that was fully compatible with the formats used in Microsoft Office 2007. Since Microsoft solely controls Office 2007, guess who controls this "standard"?
I don't really think you're out to harm Linux.
Sheesh dude, come the fuck on now! What the heck was that for? Gotta ask, is something on too tight or what?
And regarding PJ, I too say that she should either change or explain the "Forking" in her headline -- perhaps explaining and illustrating how dozens of other companies and FOSS projects "fork" open-source software every day (by that peculiar definition of "adding a feature is called forking"). And White Fang over there really should apologise to quite a number of anonymous posters over at Groklaw for his tin foil hat type hysteria... which hurts the (formerly) excellent site's credibility more than anything else.
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
So, you think that Microsoft provides computing nirvana? Please. Microsoft's control of IT has placed us at least ten years behind where we should be.
Your Opinion...
You obviously know little of computing history.
A really bad assumption...
As for ODF, Microsoft choose *NOT* to participate in it's creation. Microsoft is a member of Oasis and actually had observers on the technical committee but choose not to participate. If ODF is deficient in supporting Microsoft technologies they have only themselves to blame.
True, they pulled out of OpenDocument, when the feature set was not going to be robust enough for even advanced formatted documents produced by either Wordperfect or MS Word. The standard was so closely tied to the 'available' features set of the 'lowest' common demoninator 'OpenOffice', If I was MS, I would have told them to go pound sand also.
The part you seem to not realize, instead of taking their toys and going home, MS took all their Office file formats and fully opened them up to give the industry a robust alternative to OpenDocument, so if companies want a standard they can choice something that will at least include the text and basic math, or a format that includes everything a MS or Wordperfect product can compose.
They are actually helping the industry here. They could have kept the Office format closed not played nice, instead they went out of their way to make it 'standard' and then give out the specifications to the world for free usage.
I think it is much more logical that Microsoft preferred to implement a format that they alone controlled as opposed to working with others to define something everyone could use. After all, by their own admission, Microsoft has stated that OOXML was designed *specifically* to support only Microsoft products and indeed the charter for TC45 at ECMA specified that they were to create a "standard" that was fully compatible with the formats used in Microsoft Office 2007. Since Microsoft solely controls Office 2007, guess who controls this "standard"?
There is some truth in that the standard has a bias towards MS Office product offerings; however, they are by far the most complex and robust formats in the industry, so why wouldn't you start with the products that have the most features packed into a file format?
And even though they do start with the MS Office base of features, the specification is NOT locked in any way to just what MS provides, it is very extensible and open, specifically designed for new featuers no matter what company they come from.
Ok, hold it right there. You're trying to make a logical progression where there is none. The first two are correct, the last one isn't. The issue revolves around what happens when you introduce code that has been covered by patents. Because there is the threat of patent suit against the people accepting the code, it is no longer "freely redistributable".
The point of the GPL is that anyone can take your code, change it, and redistribute it, as long as they follow the rules. You can't make a distinction between people redistributing your software who you like and those who you don't like.
"Like" doesn't enter into the picture. This is an issue surrounding Novell's decision to introduce code that is not acceptable into a software project due to the licensing on that software project. Couple that with a known, well-documented history of monopolization by one of their business partners and it becomes a hot potato.
There's a lot of you who are sounding like Bush-style Republicans who want free speech for themselves, but not for those saying things they don't agree with. I bet a lot of you beating up on Novell today for taking advantage of the GPL are the same who beat up on Newt Gingrich the other day when he wanted to restrict free speech on the Internet. Hypocrites.
This isn't a matter of disagreement, this is a matter of contract law.
Beating up on Novell for "taking advantage of the GPL" is not the right description. More like "put them on trial for contractual breach". That has a nicer tone to it. As for good 'ol Newt, well, he seems to really dislike this other contract, it's called the Constitution.
Saying that people are hypocrites really points out that you don't understand what is happening here. Stop mixing metaphors. Start showing it for what it is - an attempt by a company to circumvent licensing that applies to all other users of the same software. Apparently, they seem to think that it applies to everyone else, but not them. How's that for hypocracy?
If you don't like Novell's contributions, don't accept them; if you think Novell is trying to get OpenXML into OO.o so MS can sue RedHat for patent infringement, think again. I doubt OpenXML is any more patent-ridden than the .doc format, or that there aren't any patent violations in the Linux kernel or OO.o already.
You're right, I won't accept them, but not because I don't like Novell. I won't accept them because there ARE patents on Microsoft's XML format. Because there is no clear declaration from Microsoft Corp., it is nearly impossible to determine if you can or can't use the software without violating some kind of agreement somewhere.
Believe it or not, Novell may just be trying to differentiate its product so people would buy it over their competitor's product. You know, effectively compete in the business world. That sort of thing.
Who is their competitor? Red Hat? Microsoft? Both? Does competition always require differentiation between offerings in a market? Why side with a competitor? Further, why side with a competitor that has consistently done its best to put you out of business? Ok, even further, why side with a competitor that is a known monopolist and has done its best to put you out of business? Does this business deal benefit Novell? Does it benefit Microsoft? Does it benefit the people that own the copyright on the software that is being modified and/or extended by Novell? If it benefits Novell and Microsoft, but not the original owners of the software, then what does that say about Novell's (and Microsoft's) concept of licensing and patents?
How's this for an opinion: this is just one of many things that Microsoft will do to era
Maybe I'm too old, but I can't quite understand all the people jumping to conclusions and screaming Blasphemy!
I'm an (Open)Suse user myself and been for a lot of years, I still do not see one reason to change distribution. That is, until something bad maybe happens. As of now everything is just speculation.
The OpenXML plugin is hardly a fork, none less than say custom kernel patches that every distro seem to have, for one reason or other. The source is open, so what is the problem?
Regarding patents - Novell (or someone for there) said themselves that this covenant (sp?) absolutely does not mean that they can start to use MS patent-encumbered stuff (Sorry, couldn't find link with a quick google).
If people so strongly disagree to adding OpenXML support to OO.o, shouldn't these same people also demand Word Doc format compability to be removed from OO.o, if for no other reason, to be consistent? Doc format is what have helped OO.o get in to at least some office use and if "technology" changes and "evolves" like OpenXML*, I see no way for OO.o to stay relevant other than also offering support.
Things would perhaps be different if OO.o already had half of the marketshare, but as it is I doubt it even has 5%.
*) No, I do not consider fileformats technology, not changing them neccerly "evolving".
To you, to Miguel de Icaza and other geeks in Novel that have their eyes firmly closed in regards to this situation.
We do know you guys will do nothing to hurt Linux of FOSS in general. But you are bloody pawns in this chase game.
MS layed out the battleground to claim whatever they want regarding your contributions if they are deployed in other commercial distributions of Linux. Ballmer made it pretty clear, I hope you will not deny that.
Patent law in the US is so monumentally broken that MS can clamin pretty much whatever they want. Your contributions to FOSS, done in good faith, implementing stuff to which MS may have a patent claim, could be eventually used to harm somebody else.
The masterful stroke of MS is that it has found a way not to alienate Linux Enterprise users. That way is you guys. You are their trojan horse and you seem quite happy to be playing that role, blissfully unaware that you are being carted in the middle of the battle field and that the initial salvo against you is clearly being happening.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We the users, how dare we!, to demand formats that work in our favour and not in favour of our software providers.
Whose data is it anyway? What happened with "the client is right"?
But at least you cleared things up. Most companies want to luck us in instead of providing a service worth its name.
Who cares is MS document format is patented or not? The patent system is so utterly broken that they can patent a nuisance in how a document is handled and that would give them free reign to threaten competitors and users as they see fit.
What many people around here do not seem to get is that software patents are not used in good faith, and that they can't be, because software is speech, and climing innovation on a process of thought is the mos silly thing since, well, since we started thinking.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.