Slashdot Mirror
ASF Lays Out Its Plan For OpenOffice.org
Thinkcloud writes "In an open letter, the Apache Software Foundation has made its plans for OpenOffice clear, including an Apache-branded OpenOffice suite targeted at developers coming next year."
From The H: "The ASF says it does not want to force any vision on the ODF community noting that 'it is impossible to agree upon a single vision for all participants, Apache OpenOffice does not seek to define a single vision, nor does it seek to be the only player' in the large ODF ecosystem. Instead, it wishes to offer a neutral 'collaboration opportunity' and notes that its permissive licensing and development model are 'widely recognised as one of the best ways to ensure open standards, such as ODF, gain traction and adoption.'"
At this point is there really any reason why we need OpenOffice? Libreoffice, stupid name aside, seems to do everything that people want and more or less all the developers jumped ship for it a long time ago.
Does anyone still use OpenOffice.org? I was sure it imploded when LibreOffice was formed to get out from under Oracle's thumb? Plus, it doesn't have to have the stupid .org tacked onto it's name to avoid trademark issues.
If Apache is doing this right, they had better court the LibreOffice devs back into the fold.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I feel like I should know the answer to this, but what does Apache have to do with OOo? I thought Oracle owned OOo and ruled it with an iron fist.
Let it die.
http://www.libreoffice.org/
Is fantastic.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
... yields no result in the open letter (TFA does mention it but only about old news).
Even if they don't merge back, I feel they should still work together (or did I miss something ?)
The politics is to provide OpenOffice under more permissive license, as for some businesses this might be a deal-breaker, thus getting more traction for the ODF format. So people will have choice between Apache licensed OpenOffice, or GPLv3 licensed LibreOffice, whichever they go with — it's still compatible.
They could quite well turn it into a library, and let people write their software with it. They are publishing it with the APL, if you redistribute it you must fork (because of trademark issues), and most people did already migrate to forks.
It is a nice way to make everybody colaborate on making ODF better, put everybody in sync, and make more ODF editors available. You can't do that with GPLed software. For once Oracle created something good. Too bad they had to try to screw everybody before they give up and do the right thing.
Rethinking email
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Apache license isn't the perfect "open" license, (I preferred GPL2), but I'm still good with the Apache License. Since Apache is a neutral player, they won't be imposing 'will' or 'vision'. Still, its connections with Oracle presses me to use LibreOffice instead, at least for the immediate future. The hazards of forking any project is that a once viable branch inevitably falls behind. However, whenever I look at the demise of a branch, I look at the reasons surrounding the fork (usually greed, or some kind of restriction where the license or code base is used to beat contributors over the head), at which point, the fork occurs. Usually there is remorse afterward, but once a project forks, it never goes back. Its happened a lot. The 'open' version of Java is now the default version of Java. XFree86 is now X.org. Before GTK, the license restrictions around mosaic were incredible. The people who started Mambo tried to turn 'Free' into 'Mine'. The fork became Joomla. Backpeddling ensued, but stick a fork in it, it was done. Hello LibreOffice.
My guess it that Apache just got this from Oracle and they wouldn't want to piss them off by just handing it on to LibreOffice, since clearly Oracle didn't get along with those guys. So they'll make their Apache version, keep the lights on and the project running and then one of them is going to fade away and eventually all that's useful will be merged into the other. I expect more of a xfree86 vs xorg situation here, once the split has already happened there's really not going to be much of a conflict, the developers will pretty soon gravitate towards the one that is best.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think this can happen because of incompatible licenses.
If you want to embed or reuse a library then I would suggest that you would be better off by using the Office Engine from the Calligra Suite (http//www.calligra.org/). It is already used in many mobile and embedded places, e.g. the office viewer in the Nokia N9 smartphone. The engine -- and the apps themselves -- are all under LGPL which makes it usable even with non-free apps.
LibreOffice is looking really good. They seem to have their shit together. Why break the momentum?
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
they lie...
about their lies! LibreOffice!
Does that mean they tell the truth
Posting to remove accidental moderation
Apache Software License 2.0 is GPL3 compatible. Which doesn't actually matter ; LibreOffice and OOo are actually released under the same license - LGPL3
The main license issue was that Sun / Oracle wouldn't accept patches without copyright attribution. This kept their options open - because they owned the copyrights of all the source, they could re-license it as they saw fit, including as a commercial product (StarOffice).
Since then I am not aware of The Document Foundation demanding copyright attribution. There was basically no point doing so - the copyrights were still owned by Oracle, so it's not as if they could ever re-license the code as anything other than the license they acquired it under. The positive effect this has is that patches are easier to get into the code because contributors don't have to enter into a legal agreement with the foundation (which they may or may not be permitted to do, depending on their employment conditions, age, etc).
Because the licenses continue to be LGPL3, LibreOffice can continue to merge patches from OOo at their leisure. Apache may only merge patches from LibreOffice if they have abandoned the practice of demanding copyright attribution (as of right now, the relevant page still demands that you sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement).
So until Apache makes it very clear what their position on copyright attribution is, they remain the less Free of the two projects, and LibreOffice definitely has a purpose, and continues to have a technical advantage, despite being somewhat overshadowed by the brand capital that the OpenOffice.org name has accrued.
It'll probably be something like the all-out war between the Conch Republic and the USA a few decades ago.
This GPL FUD of late is getting a bit annoying: why should an office suite released under the GPL be a deal-breaker for some businesses*? I recently bought some games from GOG and DotEmu and wonder what? During the installation there was an EULA for the closed source software and then the full text of the GPL: those games were in facts a bundle of a closed source installation/launcher program made by GOG/DotEmu, an open source GPL'ed application (DosBox or SCUMMvm) and the original closed source game. It seems that someone is not scared by the boogeyman Stallman. *if they want to just use the application or create some new templates (99.99% of them) they can do it without releasing anything; if they want to modify the program for internal use only, they can do it without releasing anything.
It's actually been awhile since I've installed or used OpenOffice...I've been using Google Docs myself mostly and for family they've all been running old copies of OpenOffice forever. I'd originally dismissed LibreOffice as a cumbersome-named knockoff and OO was working for me so I just ignored it. My wife does have some complaints she's run into with OO; is LO more actively maintained, faster/more efficient, or have imrpoved features over OO now? Is it worth changing over or upgrading?
Ya know what I'd really like - instead of either of these packages chasing MS Office 2003, I'd like to see something like what Firefox (and now Chrome) did to the browser product space, but for office productivity suites. Where's my small, lightweight, and fast word processor, spreadsheet app, or presentation software that is straightforward to get into but also has the pro features I might need, too. But not buried under tons of menus, nor ribbonized. Where's the innovation that we didn't know we even needed? Maybe Apple's office software does some of that, but I've never used it. But I always remembered OpenOffice feeling very bulky and dated. It worked, was better than shelling out $200 for MS Office, but didn't really improve on what it was replacing.
My Spanglish skills are quite rusty, I had to look it up. For the life of me I could not understand why they called the fork 'Book Office'.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As I recall, the Conch Republic actually got what they wanted at the conclusion of that war.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
From what I have seen: OpenOffice is faster, but LibreOffice has more features.
Which was to remain a part of the USA and get rid of the stupid customs checkpoints that were annoying tourists. Maybe a "war" between OOo and LO will just end up with OOo merged back into LO without a shot fired, although Oracle may have had other plans.
on my laptop, google docs on chromium or even microsoft live documents on chromium perform better than libreoffice native program. faster operations, auto-saving, much better ui (both google and ms), and documents are saved in standard formats that can be used everywhere else without headaches.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and again yes to all of your questions!
LibreOffice has not only merged countless improvements that OO.o cannot merge (because of license issues), but has cleaned up a lot of code, removed dead code, fixed known problems, improved work flow, removed limitations, improved compatibility with other software, upgraded to ODF 1.2, and made the program better in countless respects. They're also providing explicit release schedules for major and minor versions (e.g. 3.5.0 is due Feb 8, and 3.5.1 is due in the first week of March, then 3.5.2 is due in the first week of April, etc.), and are properly open about the coming features, the road map, funding, etc.
Sure, you can certainly get plenty of mileage out of existing installations of OO.o today, but if you have no compelling reason to stay with OO.o you should definitely consider upgrading to LibreOffice. I'd wager that you'll be very glad to have done it.
Bottom line, OO.o is dead and gone in all but name. I really don't see much point in continuing to spend energy on OO.o these days.
The core difference between browsing the web and working with documents is the persistence of data and how predictable (consistent) your data is presented. Nobody in their right mind expects web pages to look the same, regardless whether you use Opera, Firefox, Chrome, MSIE, or Lynx. But when it comes to documents, people get upset if a word wraps earlier in one product than another, their carefully crafted one page document suddenly overflows by two words onto a second line, their embedded images aren't properly aligned, etc. Sometimes these are legitimate concerns, sometimes it's just a matter of mismatched expectations, but overall it's a different ball game.
So if you want to play in the office/document playground, you can't afford to alienate too many people before you start stepping out of line, and improving on the old and trusted formula that so many people take for granted.
--Udo.
Its not FUD when RMS himself says the goal of GPL is to destroy non free software and RMS makes it clear he WANTS GPL to be "viral" and cause businesses to be forced to open up their code, as his whole goal is to destroy non free software.
So yes having a more permissive license is of the good, it means that companies that might need a document engine or spreadsheet engine can easily use OO.o as a base without worrying of running afoul of the GPL. Remember that like it or not RMS IS a militant, always has been, and with each version of GPL he tries his damnedest to close any and all possible loopholes that would allow a non free company to use it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Changing a license means that you have to work with the Source owner. Now that Apache Foundation owns the OpenOffice.org codebase, does that mean that LibreOffice could change the license to ASF? Assuming the developers on LIbreOffice are ok with the move...
Scott Carr
Unless a lot of things about this project change it is pretty much doomed. (Well, doomed to be ignored by everybody outside of IBM; they can finance their own Symphony devs, but nothing else will come of this unless things change.)
If you glance at the Apache openoffice mailing lists, a few things become clear:
I really wanted to see Apache OpenOffice succeed and become the main branch; I think that for a project like OO, having either a permissive license or copyright assignment to a well-governed nonprofit (as with GNU software) is a really wise idea. But I can't see them making much progress as things stand.
An office suite can't be "small" and "lightweight" and have all "the pro features I might need, too." You sound just like Agnes in Simpson Safari: you want all your groceries in one bag, but you don't want the bag to be heavy.
You can get lightweight, fast office software; for example, you can use AbiWord for your word processing needs. But it doesn't have every feature under the sun, and if it did have every pro feature anybody "might need" it wouldn't be lightweight.
RMS himself says the goal of GPL is to destroy non free software and RMS makes it clear he WANTS GPL to be "viral" and cause businesses to be forced to open up their code, as his whole goal is to destroy non free software.
Maybe... however the post by RMS you linked says otherwise: "writing non-free software is not an ethically legitimate activity, so if people who do this run into trouble, that's good! All businesses based on non-free software ought to fail, and the sooner the better", which means that RMS thinks that non-free software is bound to fail and that's a good thing in his opinion. GPL or not.
So yes having a more permissive license is of the good, it means that companies that might need a document engine or spreadsheet engine can easily use OO.o as a base without worrying of running afoul of the GPL. Remember that like it or not RMS IS a militant, always has been, and with each version of GPL he tries his damnedest to close any and all possible loopholes that would allow a non free company to use it.
This is exactly the FUD I was talking about. If a company wants to use parts of a GPL program as a base for its own program without distributing the source code, it can. The GPL (version 1,2,3...) says that the aforementioned company has to distribute the source code alongside the compiled binaries, however if it does not distribute them to third parties, it is not bound to release the source code. Obviously if it intends to sell the program (in a way or the other), there's a price, like for everything I could add, and that price is the release of the source code.
As for RMS willing to destroy non-free companies, I've got the impression that the feeling is reciprocal and that's not just because RMS is used to talking over the top, but because GNU and Linux (and not BSD) are a threat to the revenues of some companies. Even the mighty Apache web server owes a big part of its success to all those Linux servers.
So pretty much ASF is killing OpenOffice....
As someone else is mentioning, the Apache Contributor License Agreement is not a copyright transfer. It is a license only. Also, Oracle did not transfer the copyright on OO.o to the Apache Software Foundation - they licensed the OO.o code base to Apache in a way that allows Apache to release it and their derivatives under the Apache License.
Also, at the ASF forking is a feature. There is no problem with forks, even of the Apache Licensed version, so long as in that case the Apache License and applicable trademarks are honored.
Oh, and the openoffice.org web site has not been moved under ASF custody yet. So a lot of material there is now obsolete, especially around licensing and code donations.
Who cares what RMS wants? What matters is what the GPL says, not what RMS says.
It is FUD. The GPL (any version) does not require anyone to release code at any time. What it says it that your legal right to distribute to distribute software or code covered by the GPL is contingent on the provision or offer of provision of the source. It does not take away an authors copyright of the code they do write, and does not attempt to prevent a release of that code should it replace the GPL parts with parts that are BSD or written in-house. The only way you could categoricly prevent someone from using original code and program design that they have written is though software patents, which RMS additionally opposes.
As to your second paragraph, it depends on what you mean by "the good". However merely referencing the same comment that you linked to it's not clear that Stallman would oppose adding a bright-line into the Open Document Formats, where merely saving code to the declared standard would not violate licences of existing implementations. Only if you implemented a new feature or extension would you need to release code or sufficient documentation for a programer to code such an extension onto existing implementations.
I really think GPL + a bright-line (which is what the LGPL does) can be better that a simple BSD when trying to engineer a new standard that competes with an existing standard.
Lets take a similar statement of fact. "Using a proprietary licence for a library gives those specific proprietary developers an advantage over all other developers, a library they can use, while all other developers may not"
Does it then follow that goal of any proprietary library is to block all other software?
No indeed, your logic is faulty. The goal is to out-compete other software, to provide more features than the competition, to align the practical with the moral.
Besides your objection would apply even more strongly to many proprietary project as they do no allow anyone the advantages of thier code. If we were to imagine RMS as the CEO or some corporation that controlled the copyrights for all of the GPL'd products his comments would seem perfectly mundane. Every proprietary developer competes in the same manner. The goal is to displace non-free software, which is categorically not the same as blocking it's use.