Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Asks OpenOffice Community Members To Leave

Elektroschock writes "In an unprecedented move with respect to other forks, Oracle asked the founders of the Document Foundation and LibreOffice to leave the OpenOffice.org Community Council. Apparently there is a conflict of interest, which concerns the Oracle employees."

27 of 589 comments (clear)

  1. Did anyone not see this coming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't have to be an oracle to see that Oracle is up to no good.

    1. Re:Did anyone not see this coming? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conflict of interest with Oracle employees. That's the laugh!

      In the end, this LibreOffice is going to look like X.Org. Where's XFree86, now? :-)

      They need a better name, 'tho. The Latin is nice - but really doesn't sound good or brand nicely.

      I propose FreeOffice. How 'bout ThinkSuite? OurOffice? What about StarOffice ( I just found that one on the ground here. No one was using it...)
       

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. I'm shocked. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was expecting them to sue. Seriously. Oracle is just the snotty kid on the block with the only basketball; the one who always takes the ball and goes home instead of accepting that everyone else is just better.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:I'm shocked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well... Honestly, look at what the Document Foundation did.

      They forked the project, and then asked Oracle to donate the name to them. While, at the same time, asking Oracle to join the "new" foundation.

      Now, I know Oracle itself didn't put a lot of work into OO.org, but Sun did (something tells me OO.org's codebase is 90% the work of paid Sun employees - correct me if I'm wrong), and so now all that work is Oracle's by right.

      So, say you spent 5 years making an awesome program, and made it GPL and everything. You did the vast majority of the work. Then, some guy says, cool, I'm gonna fork it. "Ok, fine, go for it." Oh, also, I'm gonna need the name...

      How about... go fuck yourself, sir.

      There is obvious financial value in the name, and that value was Sun's, and is now Oracle's.

    2. Re:I'm shocked. by IB4Student · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Document Foundation's members put a lot of work into OO.org. Suppose you spend over 10 years on making an awesome program, and then some company buys out the name and doesn't let you use it. The Document Foundation has done a lot more for OO.org than Oracle will ever do. It's a crime that Oracle is allowed to have their clutches on it.

    3. Re:I'm shocked. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Citation please? Because last time I heard a great deal of the work done on Open Office was PAID for by Sun, which Oracle shelled out serious cash to buy, which INCLUDES the work done by Sun. Do you think all that money was a donation? And forking it is one thing, but asking for the name as well? I would have told them exactly where to go jump. It was rude, it was some serious attitude, and it was frankly uncalled for. Hell if I was Oracle I'd just take it proprietary and see how long the Libreoffice can keep up with $0 in work coming from Oracle.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:I'm shocked. by diegocg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not a "fork".

      When SUN opensourced OpenOffice many years ago, they promised to create a independent foundation for it. All this time, the LibreOffice contributors have been waiting for the foundation, assigning their (costly) code contributions to SUN, and watching how SUN released his propietary version using their (costly) code contributions. They hoped that their self-imposed copyright donation would have a meaning they day SUN created the foundation, but the situation never had an end. After Oracle killed the OpenSolaris foundation, they decided to react quickly. It's Oracle who owes these guys an explanation.

    5. Re:I'm shocked. by LambdaWolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I actually like the name LibreOffice more than OpenOffice.

      I like how the LibreOffice name lets them dispense with insisting that the program is technically named OpenOffice.org, even though no one calls it that, as a trademark circumvention. I can appreciate the problem they had, but naming the program after its own website is just silly.

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    6. Re:I'm shocked. by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      as long as they don't use that gay LibreOffice name

      I know this is OT, but I have to call you out for using "gay" as a pejorative here. If you think it's stupid, call it that. If you think it's idiotic, call it that. If you think it's bad branding, say so. But don't call it "gay" for the same reason you wouldn't call it a "n*****" name.

      Unless, of course, you mean it's a name that invokes joyful frolicking.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. That does it by Dishwasha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been talking about it for about a year now. I'm going to stop using MySQL and only use PostgreSQL from here on out.

    1. Re:That does it by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you had any sense you'd have done that years ago. I can't fathom why anyone would use MySQL in this day and age. It's like a toy compared to most of the other DBMS's. The only upside I see to it is that it's free (as in beer - that's the only one many care about). If it was the only game in town, then sure, that factor would be worth using it for certain stuff. You get that with PostgreSQL too though, and you actually get a well written and capable DBMS.

      For the inevitable car analogy: I drive a Hyundai because I'm a cheap bastard and it works well enough. If when I was looking to get my car though, someone had given me my choice of either a free Hyundai (MySQL) or a free Audi (PostgreSQL), I can guarantee you I wouldn't be driving the Hyundai.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  4. Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by diamondsw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I predict within six months "OpenOffice" will be dead and "LibreOffice" (or similar community-owned fork) will have supplanted it. Linux distros will drop it like a hot potato, and Novell and IBM sure aren't going to tie themselves to a hostile third-party for their efforts.

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    1. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by bored_engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Didn't the license change drive much of the switch to x.org? I recall, and Wikipedia confirms, that Keith Packard had been trying some of his own things before then, but I don't recall that they were going very far. I thought that his treatment, then the change in license was what made the difference.

      So far, OO.o is distributed under the same license. I seem to recall that Fedora (Red Hat) and Ubuntu (Canonical) will support LibreOffice for now, but do they have any obligation to do so? If LO doesn't draw other support, then what will stop them from running, hat in hand (so to speak), back to OpenOffice? What if Oracle throws lots of resources behind OO.o, overshadowing the efforts that LO makes?

      For the record, I tend to think that you're right. I'm just not willing to "predict" such an outcome for now. I can see circumstances which could drive it in either direction, or even a third direction, in which there's a great deal of cooperation between OO.o and LO.

    2. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by gnalle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much of the openoffice code was created by sun employees?

      Can libreoffice stay relevant without coorperate backing?

      No flames please. I ask because I want to know.

    3. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      FOSS projects only have to be in competition if they want to be, if they in fact want to cooperate it's still quite easy and being on each others boards would ensure competition.

      I'll make the opposite prediction, LibreOffice (a much better name IMO than OpenOffice.org) will be dominant and OO will fade to only being available from Oracle. As of right now Fedora, Ubuntu and SUSE are switching that I know of, and I thought I heard nearly every Linux distribution has announced they are switching. That's signficant marketshare. Given that OO.org doesn't allow contributions without copyright assignment and LibreOffice is already moving at about twice the development pace because they accept contributions from everyone it doesn't take a crystal ball to see that LibreOffice will soon be the default very soon.

      Oracle's made a big mistake on this front. They will be just like XFree86, completely irrelevant.

    4. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Conversely, Oracle can simply change the license on OO.o, should they so choose. They own all of the copyright, no?

      They can, but they can't retroactively retract it on the existing code. That code has already been licensed under the GPL and is out there. If they change the license, only the future changes to the code could remain closed source. What LibreOffice has already forked could and would be further developed separately. You can bet at that point the Linux distros would drop the closed source Oracle version for sure.

      At this point, assuming that the developers behind LibreOffice stay active, I really don't see the Oracle version remaining in use.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    5. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What if Oracle throws lots of resources behind OO.o, overshadowing the efforts that LO makes

      Based on my experience of Oracle, OpenOffice would quickly become so buggy that the few remaining users would jump ship.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    6. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should be modded up because I think your more nuanced take on the matter is a clearer way to think about the issue. I also happen to agree with you. I tend to think the LibreOffice will become the version of choice, but I don't think it's 100% or even 90% certain.

      I can see circumstances which could drive it in either direction, or even a third direction, in which there's a great deal of cooperation between OO.o and LO.

      Oracle just made the third direction a lot harder. A normal member of the Open Source community would've seen the writing on the wall when the fork was made and realized a fight would benefit nobody. Oracle is clearly an entity that desires to cut off its nose to spite its face. I don't think the direction of cooperation is likely.

      In fact, I'm really hoping the btrfs developers leave Oracle and some other Linux distribution or a foundation starts paying them. The fact they're Oracle employees is beginning to worry me. Oracle is not playing nice, and btrfs is too important to be in the hands of a company that doesn't play nice.

  5. Smooth move by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given that Oracle thinks this will lead to a conflict of interest, doesn't that kind of imply that there will be a conflict of interest? In other words, that what Oracle sees LibreOffice doing is going to conflict with where they want OpenOffice to go?

    In other words, doesn't this basically mean that Oracle is actively planning to screw the pooch with OpenOffice?

  6. Re:MS throws chairs, Oracle throws yachts by Scholasticus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty much. I would add that any F/LOSS which depends on the good will of a large corporation should be ready at any time to cut and run. Nothing against big business (at least regarding this question) but the goal of a corporation is ultimately to make money. The goals of people who write free/open source software are many, though profit for it's own sake isn't usually at the top of the list. For Linus, it was at least originally "just for fun," for Stallman it's always been about the right to freedom - and you could make a long list of other reasons. Some people in the Linux and BSD communities of developers like to write software in an environment where making a mistake won't get them fired from their paying job. OpenOffice.org has been the flagship productivity suite for Linux for a while now. Since the acquisition of Sun by Oracle, it's only been a matter of time before some kind of split. I'm rooting for the fork, whatever they end up calling it, not because I don't like Oracle (I don't like Oracle, but that's not really the issue here), but because a truly independent office suite would be good to have. I hope that at least some of the devs who have been with this project for a long time continue to work on Libre Office.

  7. Evolution in action by NZheretic · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Quoting myself

    At some point some open source projects developers may go in a direction that the distribution vendors and end uses may disagree with. It is the licensing which allows a fork of the project to develop that sets the open source development model apart from the pure proprietary development model. Apache, X.org and even the current version of the GNU GCC compiler toolset have been all derived from an outside fork of an existing open source project. No vendor or open source software developer can block development for any substantial period of time without the risk of the development being taken over by a descendant of the same project -- it's called evolution.

    Every time the leading members/developers of each of those original projects complained bitterly about the interlopers.

    The longer the original team remains entrenched in their design/implementation choices, the less the original team control has over the successor project and the less original product's market share of total users.

    This will remain true for all freely licensed source code that Oracle has purchased or inherited. Even for the forks of the GPL licensed Java.

    In the end freely licensed source code can have no dictators, only obsoleted dickhead.

  8. Re:Clear Conflict of Interest by Statecraftsman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This all depends on the interest. I am familiar with people in the free software community whose main interest is increasing free software adoption. In that case they can fully be in support of two projects. The features may overlap and the projects may compete but the interest of free software adoption can neutralize any maliciousness that might appear in a traditional business conflict of interest situation.

  9. Re:After reading the log... by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I noticed that as well. It doesn't speak well of the Oracle people involved, since it essentially means they see Libre Office, which truly wants to remain free, as competition, and they only reason they'd see it that way is if Oracle's goals, which have not yet been stated, involved some way to tighten controls on OOo.

  10. Re:Clear Conflict of Interest by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe the founders of LibreOffice don't consider themselves in competition with Oracle and are simply forking because Oracle wasn't attending to what they felt were important issues. Forking a project in FOSS doesn't have to be competition, it can still be a quite cooperative arrangement. Apparently Oracle is of the opinion that if you aren't with them you are against them and that's a terrible position to be in. Oracle thinks like a private company and apparently considers a fork some kind of competitive betrayal which is quite sad really. Forked projects can be quite cooperative, sharing code, project direction and working together on everything but the few items they disagree on. That's apparently NOT the direction Oracle wants to go and wants to sideline themselves completely. Not to worry, LibreOffice is now the default in nearly all the major Linux Distributions and I have no doubt within a few years OO will be a footnote in history. Too bad Oracle's stupid.

  11. Re:Would it kill the submitters by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the short summary is that OpenOffice.org development is heavily dominated by one company who is slow to accept outside patches, requires copyright assignment and controls the direction it develops in, So far this has only lead to a set of extra patches (Go-oo), but with Sun being bought by Oracle the other contributors expect the situation to get worse and have decided to try reforming it as a community project. They've called it LibreOffice as Oracle owns the name but would ideally like to come to terms with Oracle and continue under the OpenOffice.org name. At least initially it seems that Oracle refuses the idea, and as they then see LibreOffice as a competing project this is bad news but not unexpected. I didn't expect Oracle to hand over the control so easily and suspect Oracle will not budge until most everybody else stand behind LibreOffice.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  12. Re:Clear Conflict of Interest by badpazzword · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is still concerning -- hell, misleading, confusing to have an "Open Office.org Community Council" made by 100% Oracle employees and 0% community.

    --
    When ideas fail, words become very handy.
  13. Re:Oracle = Predictable? by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This project isn't forked to create a better version, though, it's forked so that it doesn't depend on a gang of absolute scumbags.