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."

57 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. Re:Did anyone not see this coming? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nobody likes Oracle. Some actually like Microsoft, but the actual Oracle FanBoi count is weighted on the negative end of the scale, so mighty the vehemence of it's critics.

      I believe that the LibreOffice team ought to couple their efforts with those of the Electronic Frontier Foundation - and in response to Oracle, brand the forking venture: EFF-off .

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Did anyone not see this coming? by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      27.3% is not "most of the computing world". In fact, it won't even be the most popular language in computing for long.

      http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm

  2. Oracle doesn't approve? by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the Oracle doesn't approve, secretly create an army of 300 of your best men.

  3. 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 JackieBrown · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, it's their right to keep the name, if the open source people really want to prove that open source is better anyway they should just make the fork better and let the market decide. It was also pointed out that the name actually sucks so maybe this is really a good thing, as long as they don't use that gay LibreOffice name.

      I actually like the name LibreOffice more than OpenOffice. Also, a new name gives them a chance to shed the negative baggage that was associated with the OpenOffice name while still being able to point back to it for creditability.

    4. Re:I'm shocked. by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Technically, remember, that OOo is basically a dressing up and improving of Star Office, started by a German company, so if you want to attribute 90% of the work to someone, I'd put it there, but I don't think, at this point, you can contribute 90% to one entity.

      Granted, Star Office, both program and company, were bought by Sun, but a lot of the work was done well before Sun stepped in and bought it.

      And, I know it's a small detail, but it can matter legally, it's not GPL, it's LGPL. There are differences.

    5. Re:I'm shocked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The obvious problem with your view of the situation is
      OO.org is GPL, the part of the copyright and trademarks may belong to Oracle, but not all. As a whole, Oracle does not "own" the project.

      I can understand the move, several community members feel Oracle is going to be bad for the future of OO.org, and the project would be better
      in the hands of a non-profit foundation.

      Besides, there this is not the first fork (go-OO), and it is a sign that the project structure at OO.org is detrimental for the project. A similar, yet different situation
      happened with XFree86. Did you ever try to ask yourself why community members would try to do something drastic as a fork? It is to get rid of the rot.

      The council members would like to stay in the council because they think that even while separate, LibreOffice and others can be part of a bigger community, having similar
      goals but different rules. So all officesuites can be part of the same foundation. I do not see a COI there, this is not a company, but an OS project. The interests of the two project are largely identical. Only the way how to actually do it maybe different.

    6. 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.
    7. Re:I'm shocked. by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>LOffice

      >How about LOLffice?

      I maed you a documents ...but I ated it. ;_;

    8. 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.

    9. 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..."
    10. Re:I'm shocked. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Suppose you spend over 10 years on making an awesome program

      Who exactly are you claiming did this? The people who originally created StarOffice, which became OpenOffice, worked for Star Division, a company that was bought by Sun. Since then, the contributions were roughly 80% Sun employees, 15% Novell, 5% everyone else. OpenOffice has been open source for less than ten years, so the only people who can claim to have spent 10 years working on it have been paid to do so by Star Division, Sun, and Oracle.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:I'm shocked. by bangzilla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it's the folks at SUN who promised to create an independent foundation and then didn't, who owe the explanation. Then again the contributors who poured in their valuable contributions and watched, and waited and hoped are likewise culpable - expectations do not a legally binding commitment make.

      --
      Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
    12. 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/
    13. Re:I'm shocked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ratio of Sun contributions to volunteer contributions has a lot to do with rejecting outside patches and making contributers assign all rights to Sun.

    14. Re:I'm shocked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lets just call it GayOffice then and get it over with.

    15. Re:I'm shocked. by Shawn+is+an+Asshole · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the FAQ:

      Q: What does this announcement mean to other derivatives of OpenOffice.org?

      A: We want The Document Foundation to be open to code contributions from as many people as possible. We are delighted to announce that the enhancements produced by the Go-OOo team will be merged into LibreOffice, effective immediately. We hope that others will follow suit.

      --
      "It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
  4. 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
  5. 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 gblfxt · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by micheas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Nobody will know the answer to your question, because libreoffice has corporate backing of both Redhat (RHT:NYSE) and Canonical Ltd.

      I would assume that Novell will merge oo-go into libreoffice and add their support to libreoffice.

    7. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by MtHuurne · · Score: 3, Funny

      openSUSE is switching as well. Not surprising, as they were shipping go-oo before.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. Re:Reminds me of XFree86 vs XOrg by guzzloid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If that happens (and you may well be correct), I predict that Oracle will follow up by attacking LibreOffice with patent claims in order to re-assert OpenOffice's market position.

      I think it's plain to see that Oracle is not interested in FOSS principles, fairness, "community spirit", free market competition, patent-free software (regardless of Ellison's past claims) or even (as it seems at present) their reputation with us technical folk; they want to be a highly-profitable, dominant force in big-business IT with reputation with management, and screw everyone else.

      Personally, I think (hope) their current seeming disdain for the technical and FOSS community will be a problem for them in the long run, and they will probably end up back-pedalling on their stance to open community projects. I also think they bit off more than they could chew when they bought up Sun, SleepyCat, InnoBase, et al, and may be struggling to know what to do with all the projects they have inherited. After all, it's us geeks who are often in the position to choose which technologies to deploy in an organisation, and it seems there's a lot of us who are going off Oracle pretty quickly.

  6. 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?

  7. MS throws chairs, Oracle throws yachts by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft must be jealous that Oracle is the new FOSS hubris king. "They are out-eviling us! We....can't....have....this!"

    1. 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.

  8. Would it kill the submitters by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Would it kill the story submitter to give people like me with no background in open source politics some info on what the heck is LibreOffice, why was it forked and is this latest development good or bad? I occasionally use Go-oo to open incompatible files but that's about it. Wikipedia and Libreoffice's website aren't much help either. So, someone knowledgeable, please reply below. Thanks in advance.

    1. Re:Would it kill the submitters by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      LibreOffice is a fork of OO.org that was started because of Oracle's buyout of Sun. They asked Oracle to donate the OO.org name to their fork, and now Oracle has kicked them out of the OO.org community counsel. Hard to say if it's good or bad, but it looks to be the start of a fight.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    2. 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
    3. Re:Would it kill the submitters by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually no.
      Slashdot is FOSS centered but also covers a multitude of other sins, look at the one on near-nuclear disasters in the US for example.
      My background knowledge of this particular story could be summarised as

      1. Sun bought Star Office several years back
      2. Sun released the Star Office sources and founded OpenOffice, while still releasing a non-free version under the original name
      3. OpenOffice became more and more important over the years, but the lion's share of the development was funded by Sun
      4. Oracle bought MySQL but this did not work out too well. A central problem was that MySQL is a free competitor to Oracle's main product (simplifying things a lot!!)
      5. Oracle bought Sun, thus acquiring Java and OpenOffice. They were not the reason for the buyout.
      6. loss?

      That is simply general knowledge and does not adequately explain the background to this confrontation.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    4. Re:Would it kill the submitters by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sun bought MySQL. Oracle bought Sun and MySQL came along with it.
      Anyway, Oracle DB and MySQL are not really competitors. Oracle would be overkill for a typical MySQL project, and MySQL wouldn't be up to the task of replacing a typical Oracle installation.

  9. Clear Conflict of Interest by kn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a complete outsider, having read through the logs, it is hard for me to understand how this could possibly not be a conflict of interest.

    I'm all for some Oracle bagging, as an ex-OpenSolaris user, but the comments so far seem rather unjustified in this case.

    The board seems to be composed of Oracle Employees, and 3 independents (possibly more who were not present?). Comments are made that indicate that some of the Oracle employees have been involved in OpenOffice since before Sun's acquisition of Star Office. The 3 independents have all formed a competing project, and fail to understand how forming a separate project constitutes a conflict of interest. They justify this position by mentioning that they invited Oracle to join the board of their competing project. The concept of some mysterious cloud office is mentioned by one of the independents, seemingly indicating that there is no conflict. Most reasonable people would ordinarily conclude that the independents are crazy; however, due to Oracle's involvement it is apparently they who are in error.

    Oracle may well have been uncooperative or something to bring forth a situation that necessitated a fork, but that hardly makes the current predicament anything less than a conflict of interest.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. Re:Clear Conflict of Interest by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      The board seems to be composed of Oracle Employees, and 3 independents (possibly more who were not present?)

      No, there are just three independents on the council. Without those three it's 100% run by Oracle, and while they may find bodies to fill the seats nobody will think they have any real influence over Oracle. In practice it's the community council that is being dissolved, at least the "community" part of it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Self-destructive by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    LibreOffice and co. have been a barely known contender in the free Office market so far, while OO.o has the market pretty much sealed up.

    After this little stunt, and if this trend continues in the future, I would be surprised if OO.o remained the office of choice in Ubuntu 11.04, or really any of the Linux distros who pride themselves on free software. Oracle is destroying its free-software products.

    A naive person might ask why they bought Sun in the first place, if they are clueless about how to manage free software. A cynic would answer that they bought it in order to run OO.o, MySQL and Java into the ground.

  13. Re:After reading the log... by Znork · · Score: 3, Informative

    Or is it as easy as releasing a "new version" with a new version number and including an "updated license"?

    If they have required copyright assignment for outside contributions, which OO has, it's that easy. For projects without copyright assignment it's much more difficult, as you have to have the agreement of all contributors (excepting automatic update clauses like the GPLs GPL version X or later).

    Of course, you cannot retroactively change the license, so previously released code would remain viable to use for a fork.

  14. Re:painful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly. Just like your post, their chat messages were incomprehensible and irrelevant.

  15. French by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Funny

    It doesn't....but tacking an english word onto a french makes a lot of sense if you want to expand into Canada. However since there are more letters in 'office' than 'libre' they may still fall foul of the Quebec language police for being more english than french.

  16. Re:This will kill organizational adoption of OO.or by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Answer: "It *IS* OpenOffice. It uses the exact same code even though the company that owns it was bought out by a rival that now wants to control what you do with their version. But the code is free forever, so they can't *make* you upgrade to something inferior (unlike their competitors that we moved away from), so someone has created an identical but still usable version and just had to change the name. That's 100% legal and there will be no arguments or court cases to trouble us over that because our license is perpetual. Your apps will always still work, but the next upgrade might have a different logo on it. Your IT guys don't have to do anything new to upgrade, there are no massive system-wide changes, it's still the same program. The icon design might change on your desktop a little, that's about it, but the file formats are still perfectly 100% the same and the software is still perfectly 100% supported, and still running the same code it always was. But instead of the half-a-dozen uninspired programmers put on the project by the new owners, we have the same community of thousands of programmers that worked on the "old" versions and know the code off-by-heart. We also have the choice to keep using the old code forever, or move to the new version by the new horrible company, or use the new version from the old community, which is kinda why we moved onto Open Source in the first place. Incidentally, how is [sister company]'s upgrade to Office 2010 going?"

  17. 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.

  18. FuckYouOffice Anybody? by hduff · · Score: 5, Funny

    LibreOffice is a fork of OO.org that was started because of Oracle's buyout of Sun. They asked Oracle to donate the OO.org name to their fork, and now Oracle has kicked them out of the OO.org community counsel. Hard to say if it's good or bad, but it looks to be the start of a fight.

    FuckYouOffice would be a good name given the turn of events. And very counter-culture/rebellious.

    In everyday usage, it could be shortened to FuckOff, like:
        "What's that Open Source office suite you are using?"
        "FuckOff."
        "Wow, thanks. Gotta get me some of that."
    or
        "How can I convert this mysterious ODF document into Word format to read it on my Win98 computer?"
        "FuckOff."
        "Thank you, helpful person."

    It's a name that could work well for FOSS.

    But perhaps UpYoursOffice might be better because that sounds more like European-bastardized English and less Japanese than FuckYouOffice. But it's not as much fun.

    Almost anything is better than LibreOffice. Obviously LibreOffice did not wind up with any of the marketing people in the divorce.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  19. Re:not really a good name by orasio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The "cuba libre" drink is said to be the result of US intervention in Cuban independence from Spain.
    It might have something to do with revolutionaries, but not communist at all.
    It also makes you think of Coca Cola, that's a capitalist icon if there is one.