You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by suhail ansari <ia...@outlook.com> on 2017/01/10 18:43:04 UTC
future of OpenOffice
Hi,
My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community.
OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together.
Suhail Ansari
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by esh1907 <es...@gmail.com>.
-1 for ASF+TDF
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:43 PM, suhail ansari <ia...@outlook.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community.
>
> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My
> suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document
> foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software
> foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software
> foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one
> product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software
> products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF
> and the document foundation to work together.
>
>
> Suhail Ansari
>
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 13.01.2017 um 01:26 schrieb Simos Xenitellis:
>
> There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org
> that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice.
>
> I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply show
> a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options.
We had this request some times before. Our answer was each time a clear
"no". Nothing has changed in the meanwhile.
There are no (new) reasons, why we should do this.
So this question is needless.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Simos Xenitellis <si...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann
<an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet.
>
> If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice
> versa.
>
> We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
> topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
>
There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org
that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice.
I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply show
a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options.
Specifically, it should show
Apache OpenOffice Libreoffice NeoOffice
-> apache.openoffice.org -> www.libreoffice.org -> www.neooffice.org
I am happy to design and propose such a page.
Simos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anwalt@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de]
> Hello,
>
> this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend
> tasks yet.
>
> If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find
> us. And vice
> versa.
>
> We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
> topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
>
> If LO people want to support AOO, they know how. If the want to
> collaborate, they know to whom they should talk to.
>
> Our invitations to put code also under the Apache Licence (v2), to
> collaborate in marketing and documentation etc. are still valid.
>
> IMO it makes sense to continue both projects, AOO and LO.
Thank you for this very clear statement.
Greetings,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Hello,
this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet.
If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice
versa.
We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any
topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again.
If LO people want to support AOO, they know how. If the want to
collaborate, they know to whom they should talk to.
Our invitations to put code also under the Apache Licence (v2), to
collaborate in marketing and documentation etc. are still valid.
IMO it makes sense to continue both projects, AOO and LO.
Kind regards
Michael
.
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
The problem is another, you are trying to sow uncertainty here.
This is a method I only know of LO / TDF sympatizers and only against OpenOffice.
Never have I experienced the LO / TDF sympatizers attacking other Office projects.
Likewise, I have not experienced the OO sympathizers try the same on LO
mailing-lists.
Jörg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:akos@romkat.ro]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:30 AM
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: future of OpenOffice
>
> I wrote something that is not true?
> About the trends:
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice
>
> Finantial report:
> https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualRepor
> t2015LR.pdf
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf
>
>
>
> 2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel, Jörg Schmidt írta:
> >> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:akos@romkat.ro]
> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> >> merged in OpenOffice.
> >> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice,
> >> more exactly
> >> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because
> >> the OO code
> >> is outdated compared with LO code.
> >> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice
> > No. You spread only bad propaganda.
> >
> > Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that
> you have changed your
> > address from nagy.akos@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on
> this list here) to
> > akos@romkat.ro (today)?
> >
> >
> > What you try here is typical FUD.
> >
> >
> > Jörg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/13/2017 10:40 AM, RA Stehmann wrote:
> I am looking for a Template for "Game of live".
I've got a template for generating YiJing hexagrams.
Known quasi issues:
* It doesn't currently include interpretations from the YiJing, but 64
plus 384 cut and paste operations, and the addition of two columns
calling the appropriate hexagram and line, can take care of that problem;
* it doesn't explain the significance of the 500 or so hexagrams
generated from the Cast and Moving hexagram signify;
I've got a template for _At a Journal Workshop_ that includes
supplemental material from other branches of counseling;
Either of those might suffice as a template for _The Game of Life_.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 13.01.2017 um 11:39 schrieb RA Stehmann:
>
> I am looking for a Template for "Game of live".
Sorry:
"Game of life"
Regards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 13.01.2017 um 10:43 schrieb toki:
> ^1: All of the games (Flight Simulator, Space Invaders, Tick Tack Toe)
> have been removed from LibO and AOo. However, templates for various
> games are available.
I am looking for a Template for "Game of live".
Kind reagards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Writing a list of the top 100 defects that are easy and YOU would like fixed IS the Apache Way. You can suggest and help. What is not the Apache Way is to force others.
All the best!
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:09 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/13/2017 08:38 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>>
>> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately ... to
> state they want to get involved.
>
> I've been sorely tempted to send them an email, telling them to
> construct a specific add-on. I've a lot more ideas up my sleeve.
> The other option is to assign them one of the 23,796 bugs, at random.
>
> Tisn't The Apache Way, but it points at something specific to do, for
> which they might get the class credit they are wanting, and maybe even
> the bug or add-on they were assigned materializes, fully functional, and
> complete.
>
> jonathon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/13/2017 08:38 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately ... to
state they want to get involved.
I've been sorely tempted to send them an email, telling them to
construct a specific add-on. I've a lot more ideas up my sleeve.
The other option is to assign them one of the 23,796 bugs, at random.
Tisn't The Apache Way, but it points at something specific to do, for
which they might get the class credit they are wanting, and maybe even
the bug or add-on they were assigned materializes, fully functional, and
complete.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Wolf Halton <wo...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for these reminders. I was watching odftoolkit a few years ago.
Wolf Halton
Mobile/Text 678-687-6104
--
Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc.
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 23:05, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> If support for Microsoft Office formats is desired and Java is not a problem then Apache has a 15 year old project called Apache POI. Also, Apache ODFToolkit is sitting in the Incubator for 5.5 years now with one developer - Svante.
>
> Conversion between ODF and OOXML is the only way to ultimate document freedom. Institutions cannot change - documents need to be write once and use anywhere.
>
> There is a way if there is a will.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1 :-D
>>
>> I will pick maybe some of the stuff up.
>>
>>
>>> On 13.01.2017 21:38, Chuck Davis wrote:
>>> Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :)
>>>
>>> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a
>>> professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to
>>> state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are
>>> taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas.
>>>
>>> Thanks for being specific.
>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> but I fail to see it in my use cases.
>>>> As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since
>>>> either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is
>>>> overkill for more than 90% of the user base.
>>>>
>>>> As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that
>>>> requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would
>>>> be more appropriate to use R & SQLite.
>>>>
>>>>> and start rolling out really useful features
>>>> For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality,
>>>> and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not
>>>> currently present in AOo.
>>>>
>>>> For Base:
>>>> Step One: Include SQLite;
>>>> Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well
>>>> enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches;
>>>> Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms,
>>>> macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way
>>>> of example:
>>>> * Project Management;
>>>> * Genealogy Records;
>>>> * Cookbook, including nutritional data;
>>>> * Contact Management;
>>>>
>>>> For Calc:
>>>> Step One: Include R as part of the core install;
>>>> Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc,
>>>> that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example:
>>>> * Financial Spread Betting;
>>>> * Investment Analysis;
>>>> * Earthquake Prediction;
>>>>
>>>> ###
>>>>
>>>> Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN,
>>>> to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that
>>>> provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears
>>>> to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.)
>>>>
>>>> "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a
>>>> practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll
>>>> back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite
>>>> --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal
>>>> user-configuration and no end-user integration required.
>>>>
>>>> ###
>>>>
>>>> Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In
>>>> theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality.
>>>>
>>>> A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images,
>>>> etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft
>>>> Office Binder.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be.
>>>> For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases.
>>>>
>>>> As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic
>>>> essay.)
>>>>
>>>> Built-in speech recognition would be a second example.
>>>>
>>>> Self-voicing functionality would be a third example.
>>>>
>>>> jonathon
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
If support for Microsoft Office formats is desired and Java is not a problem then Apache has a 15 year old project called Apache POI. Also, Apache ODFToolkit is sitting in the Incubator for 5.5 years now with one developer - Svante.
Conversion between ODF and OOXML is the only way to ultimate document freedom. Institutions cannot change - documents need to be write once and use anywhere.
There is a way if there is a will.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1 :-D
>
> I will pick maybe some of the stuff up.
>
>
>> On 13.01.2017 21:38, Chuck Davis wrote:
>> Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :)
>>
>> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a
>> professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to
>> state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are
>> taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas.
>>
>> Thanks for being specific.
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> but I fail to see it in my use cases.
>>> As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since
>>> either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is
>>> overkill for more than 90% of the user base.
>>>
>>> As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that
>>> requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would
>>> be more appropriate to use R & SQLite.
>>>
>>>> and start rolling out really useful features
>>> For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality,
>>> and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not
>>> currently present in AOo.
>>>
>>> For Base:
>>> Step One: Include SQLite;
>>> Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well
>>> enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches;
>>> Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms,
>>> macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way
>>> of example:
>>> * Project Management;
>>> * Genealogy Records;
>>> * Cookbook, including nutritional data;
>>> * Contact Management;
>>>
>>> For Calc:
>>> Step One: Include R as part of the core install;
>>> Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc,
>>> that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example:
>>> * Financial Spread Betting;
>>> * Investment Analysis;
>>> * Earthquake Prediction;
>>>
>>> ###
>>>
>>> Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN,
>>> to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that
>>> provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears
>>> to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.)
>>>
>>> "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a
>>> practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll
>>> back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite
>>> --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal
>>> user-configuration and no end-user integration required.
>>>
>>> ###
>>>
>>> Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In
>>> theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality.
>>>
>>> A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images,
>>> etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft
>>> Office Binder.
>>>
>>>> I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be.
>>> For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases.
>>>
>>> As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic
>>> essay.)
>>>
>>> Built-in speech recognition would be a second example.
>>>
>>> Self-voicing functionality would be a third example.
>>>
>>> jonathon
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
+1 :-D
I will pick maybe some of the stuff up.
On 13.01.2017 21:38, Chuck Davis wrote:
> Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :)
>
> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a
> professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to
> state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are
> taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas.
>
> Thanks for being specific.
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>>
>>> but I fail to see it in my use cases.
>> As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since
>> either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is
>> overkill for more than 90% of the user base.
>>
>> As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that
>> requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would
>> be more appropriate to use R & SQLite.
>>
>>> and start rolling out really useful features
>> For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality,
>> and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not
>> currently present in AOo.
>>
>> For Base:
>> Step One: Include SQLite;
>> Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well
>> enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches;
>> Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms,
>> macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way
>> of example:
>> * Project Management;
>> * Genealogy Records;
>> * Cookbook, including nutritional data;
>> * Contact Management;
>>
>> For Calc:
>> Step One: Include R as part of the core install;
>> Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc,
>> that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example:
>> * Financial Spread Betting;
>> * Investment Analysis;
>> * Earthquake Prediction;
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN,
>> to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that
>> provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears
>> to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.)
>>
>> "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a
>> practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll
>> back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite
>> --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal
>> user-configuration and no end-user integration required.
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In
>> theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality.
>>
>> A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images,
>> etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft
>> Office Binder.
>>
>>> I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be.
>> For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases.
>>
>> As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic
>> essay.)
>>
>> Built-in speech recognition would be a second example.
>>
>> Self-voicing functionality would be a third example.
>>
>> jonathon
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Chuck Davis <cj...@gmail.com>.
Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :)
It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a
professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to
state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are
taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas.
Thanks for being specific.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>
> > but I fail to see it in my use cases.
>
> As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since
> either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is
> overkill for more than 90% of the user base.
>
> As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that
> requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would
> be more appropriate to use R & SQLite.
>
> > and start rolling out really useful features
>
> For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality,
> and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not
> currently present in AOo.
>
> For Base:
> Step One: Include SQLite;
> Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well
> enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches;
> Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms,
> macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way
> of example:
> * Project Management;
> * Genealogy Records;
> * Cookbook, including nutritional data;
> * Contact Management;
>
> For Calc:
> Step One: Include R as part of the core install;
> Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc,
> that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example:
> * Financial Spread Betting;
> * Investment Analysis;
> * Earthquake Prediction;
>
> ###
>
> Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN,
> to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that
> provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears
> to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.)
>
> "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a
> practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll
> back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite
> --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal
> user-configuration and no end-user integration required.
>
> ###
>
> Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In
> theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality.
>
> A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images,
> etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft
> Office Binder.
>
> > I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be.
>
> For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases.
>
> As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic
> essay.)
>
> Built-in speech recognition would be a second example.
>
> Self-voicing functionality would be a third example.
>
> jonathon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
> but I fail to see it in my use cases.
As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since
either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is
overkill for more than 90% of the user base.
As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that
requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would
be more appropriate to use R & SQLite.
> and start rolling out really useful features
For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality,
and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not
currently present in AOo.
For Base:
Step One: Include SQLite;
Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well
enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches;
Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms,
macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way
of example:
* Project Management;
* Genealogy Records;
* Cookbook, including nutritional data;
* Contact Management;
For Calc:
Step One: Include R as part of the core install;
Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc,
that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example:
* Financial Spread Betting;
* Investment Analysis;
* Earthquake Prediction;
###
Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN,
to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that
provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears
to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.)
"Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a
practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll
back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite
--- if it does everything in the background, with minimal
user-configuration and no end-user integration required.
###
Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In
theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality.
A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images,
etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft
Office Binder.
> I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be.
For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases.
As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic
essay.)
Built-in speech recognition would be a second example.
Self-voicing functionality would be a third example.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Chuck Davis <cj...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Jonathon, for giving us something specific. I get so weary of
LO people (and most of the media world it seems) spouting how much better
LO is but I fail to see it in my use cases. Most of what you have pointed
out is not applicable to the vast majority of users I would guess. I keep
waiting to see the open source world quit copying the latest gimic from MS
and start rolling out really useful features -- and, no, I don't have
enough imagination to know what those might be.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:43 AM, toki <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 01/12/2017 04:52 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
>
> > tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
>
> From a corporate POV, the two most significant differences are:
> * TSCP/BAILS classification;
> * PDF signing;
>
> For linguists, and users of endangered/minority languages, the most
> significant differences are:
> * LibO 5.3 more accurately displays non-horizontal writing systems than
> AOo 4.1.3;
> * LibO 5.3 more accurately displays Indus Valley writing systems than
> AOo 4.1.3;
>
> Neither LibO nor AOo can handle reverse boustrophedon writing systems. :(
>
> For the rest of use, the most significant differences are:
>
> * Table Styles;
>
> * Swapping out custom palettes --- gradients, hashes, colours --- is
> much easier in LibO 5.3 than AOo 4.1.3.
> Semi-related, but keeping track of 500 different palettes in LibO 5.3 is
> much easier than with AOo 4.1.3.
>
> > LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine)
> opened it perfectly and gave me
>
> AOo is far more tolerant of malformed documents than LibO is.
> OTOH, LibO can import from, and export to more file formats than AOo.
> I am not saying that LibO correctly imports/exports said file formats.
>
> > And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid "ribbon" thingy to be
> even more annoying and counter-productive.
>
> I'm not sure if you are referring to MUFFIN in general, or the
> NoteBookBar in specific.
>
> Regardless, with a slight increase in complexity, user customization
> increases dramatically. You have a choice of:
> * NetbookBar;
> * SideBar;
> * TopBar;
> * Sidebar with TopBar;
> * None of the above. (This requires the user to do a lot of mucking
> about in the "Expert Configuration" part of LibO. It requires even more
> time and patience to correctly configure everything to be keystroke
> reachable. I haven't tested this part out. Misconfiguration can require
> complete uninstallation of all files, then re-installing the program.);
>
> At least initially, use of the NetBookBar is _discouraged_. Odds are the
> only support it will see, is from third party extensions.
>
> Wondering how long before somebody creates a theme for LibO, that
> includes a NetBookBar. AFAIK, custom themes are not yet possible for AOo.
>
> > So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common
> user?
>
> The most important thing to know, is what the use-case is:
>
> * Do you really need an office suite?
> * Would a stand alone program be more suitable?
>
> If your cyberlife consists of:
>
> * Playing games, then GoDot is a better alternative;(^1)
> * Dwelling in spreadsheets, perhaps Gnumeric is more suitable;
> * Writing scientific reports, a TeX solution might be more suitable;
> * Creating pretty charts, R is more suitable;
> * Drawing pretty pictures, GIMP is more suitable;
> * Creating movies, Cinelerra is more suitable;
> * Animating things, do the whole thing with Blender;
> * Databases, then Python and SQLite, PostGres, or MariaDB is more suitable;
>
>
> ^1: All of the games (Flight Simulator, Space Invaders, Tick Tack Toe)
> have been removed from LibO and AOo. However, templates for various
> games are available.
>
> jonathon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/12/2017 04:52 PM, Chuck Davis wrote:
> tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
From a corporate POV, the two most significant differences are:
* TSCP/BAILS classification;
* PDF signing;
For linguists, and users of endangered/minority languages, the most
significant differences are:
* LibO 5.3 more accurately displays non-horizontal writing systems than
AOo 4.1.3;
* LibO 5.3 more accurately displays Indus Valley writing systems than
AOo 4.1.3;
Neither LibO nor AOo can handle reverse boustrophedon writing systems. :(
For the rest of use, the most significant differences are:
* Table Styles;
* Swapping out custom palettes --- gradients, hashes, colours --- is
much easier in LibO 5.3 than AOo 4.1.3.
Semi-related, but keeping track of 500 different palettes in LibO 5.3 is
much easier than with AOo 4.1.3.
> LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) opened it perfectly and gave me
AOo is far more tolerant of malformed documents than LibO is.
OTOH, LibO can import from, and export to more file formats than AOo.
I am not saying that LibO correctly imports/exports said file formats.
> And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid "ribbon" thingy to be even more annoying and counter-productive.
I'm not sure if you are referring to MUFFIN in general, or the
NoteBookBar in specific.
Regardless, with a slight increase in complexity, user customization
increases dramatically. You have a choice of:
* NetbookBar;
* SideBar;
* TopBar;
* Sidebar with TopBar;
* None of the above. (This requires the user to do a lot of mucking
about in the "Expert Configuration" part of LibO. It requires even more
time and patience to correctly configure everything to be keystroke
reachable. I haven't tested this part out. Misconfiguration can require
complete uninstallation of all files, then re-installing the program.);
At least initially, use of the NetBookBar is _discouraged_. Odds are the
only support it will see, is from third party extensions.
Wondering how long before somebody creates a theme for LibO, that
includes a NetBookBar. AFAIK, custom themes are not yet possible for AOo.
> So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common user?
The most important thing to know, is what the use-case is:
* Do you really need an office suite?
* Would a stand alone program be more suitable?
If your cyberlife consists of:
* Playing games, then GoDot is a better alternative;(^1)
* Dwelling in spreadsheets, perhaps Gnumeric is more suitable;
* Writing scientific reports, a TeX solution might be more suitable;
* Creating pretty charts, R is more suitable;
* Drawing pretty pictures, GIMP is more suitable;
* Creating movies, Cinelerra is more suitable;
* Animating things, do the whole thing with Blender;
* Databases, then Python and SQLite, PostGres, or MariaDB is more suitable;
^1: All of the games (Flight Simulator, Space Invaders, Tick Tack Toe)
have been removed from LibO and AOo. However, templates for various
games are available.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Chuck Davis <cj...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Pedro, for some specific features you use.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org> wrote:
> Hi Chuck
>
> I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to
>> me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you
>> tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
>>
>
> There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
>
> 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
> Google Drive, etc)
>
> 2) Opening recent MS XML documents (quite a few show better results in LO
> than AOO)
>
> 3) Saving in MS XML format. This is useful for exchanging documents with
> those who can't or won't use LO or AOO, although it's true that saving in
> this format is the wrong way to push ODF (and document freedom) forward
>
> 4) Using fast data filters in Calc (just check/uncheck items instead of
> using the not-so-friendly Standard Filter)
>
> 5) Use a full window width horizontal scroll bar in Calc (this is unique
> in LO) instead of a scroll bar limited to the space to the left of the
> sheet tabs
>
> It's nearly half a dozen but are the ones I find really important on my
> day-to-day work...
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
+1!!
On 14.01.2017 00:11, Pedro wrote:
> Hi Damjan, all
>
>
> On 13/01/2017 17:15, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
>>> 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
>>> Google Drive, etc)
>>>
>>>
>> Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
>> content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved
>> in AOO
>> too. It's just that LO has an extra user interface for these files
>> and we
>> don't. You can open documents from "http://..." and other URLs from our
>> normal file dialog instead, by entering the URL in place of the
>> filename.
>> We support http and derivatives like https and WebDav, ftp, file,
>> package
>> (ie. zip), several native ones like GVFS and GIO on Gnome, and a few
>> others.
>
> Those are excellent news. I just tested it and it works perfectly!
> Thanks!
>
> Nevertheless, it is quite different from a user's point of view to
> have a regular Open dialog where you can browse through your remote
> files from knowing that you need to type the full URL to a document.
>
> This is exactly where LibreOffice is further ahead in the commitment
> to "eliminate the digital divide"...
>
> Pedro
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org>.
Hi Damjan, all
On 13/01/2017 17:15, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>
>> There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
>> 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
>> Google Drive, etc)
>>
>>
> Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
> content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved in AOO
> too. It's just that LO has an extra user interface for these files and we
> don't. You can open documents from "http://..." and other URLs from our
> normal file dialog instead, by entering the URL in place of the filename.
> We support http and derivatives like https and WebDav, ftp, file, package
> (ie. zip), several native ones like GVFS and GIO on Gnome, and a few others.
Those are excellent news. I just tested it and it works perfectly! Thanks!
Nevertheless, it is quite different from a user's point of view to have
a regular Open dialog where you can browse through your remote files
from knowing that you need to type the full URL to a document.
This is exactly where LibreOffice is further ahead in the commitment to
"eliminate the digital divide"...
Pedro
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Andrew Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.
For the average user, the functional differences are irrelevant. More
specifically, most people use only a fraction of the capabilities. LO
offered DOCX support before AOO, and that was a difference noticeable to
most users.
For the hard core devoted follower, there are certainly philosophical
differences related to code reuse, and people who care about that have
probably already figured out that difference and chosen a side. For the
end user, it makes little to no difference. Consider my macro document.
Should I set the license such that you cannot use the samples unless you
open your project? That is closer to LO than AOO.
Apart from that, you are left with questions such as, do I find a user
interface more attractive, a particular feature better supported, or
reliability on my specific platform. My parents use what I choose to
install on their computers.
Andrew Pitonyak
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/13/2017 05:15 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
> content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved in AOO
I suspect that there are a number of similar things that are available
in both LibO and AOo, but few outside of the primary developers are
aware of, due to documentation, or more precisely, the absence thereof.
(This applies equally to AOo and LibO.)
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org> wrote:
> Hi Chuck
>
> I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to
>> me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you
>> tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
>>
>
> There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
>
> 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
> Google Drive, etc)
>
>
Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved in AOO
too. It's just that LO has an extra user interface for these files and we
don't. You can open documents from "http://..." and other URLs from our
normal file dialog instead, by entering the URL in place of the filename.
We support http and derivatives like https and WebDav, ftp, file, package
(ie. zip), several native ones like GVFS and GIO on Gnome, and a few others.
Damjan
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org>.
Hi Chuck
> I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely
> irrelevant to
> me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can
> you
> tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
Google Drive, etc)
2) Opening recent MS XML documents (quite a few show better results in
LO than AOO)
3) Saving in MS XML format. This is useful for exchanging documents with
those who can't or won't use LO or AOO, although it's true that saving
in this format is the wrong way to push ODF (and document freedom)
forward
4) Using fast data filters in Calc (just check/uncheck items instead of
using the not-so-friendly Standard Filter)
5) Use a full window width horizontal scroll bar in Calc (this is unique
in LO) instead of a scroll bar limited to the space to the left of the
sheet tabs
It's nearly half a dozen but are the ones I find really important on my
day-to-day work...
Regards,
Pedro
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Chuck Davis <cj...@gmail.com>.
Nagy,
I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to
me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you
tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
I recently was given a 30,000 row excel sheet to read into a database so
that I could use it with a Java front end. LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on
Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) opened it perfectly and gave me
a progress bar to indicate it was working.
In my experience the LO writer user interface sucks -- badly.
In my experience the LO calc interface has become almost as annoying as the
MS Excel interface. And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid
"ribon" thingy to be even more annoying and counter-productive.
So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common user?
The Google "trend" you point to seems to indicate that people in Brazil and
Arabia can't figure out how to use LO....says nothing about OO as far as I
can tell except that OO is easier to use since the rest of the world isn't
asking as many questions about it.
Thanks for any insight you can provide.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro> wrote:
> I wrote something that is not true?
> About the trends:
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice
>
>
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>.
I wrote something that is not true?
About the trends:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice
Finantial report:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualReport2015LR.pdf
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf
2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel, Jörg Schmidt írta:
>> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:akos@romkat.ro]
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
>> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice,
>> more exactly
>> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because
>> the OO code
>> is outdated compared with LO code.
>> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice
> No. You spread only bad propaganda.
>
> Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that you have changed your
> address from nagy.akos@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on this list here) to
> akos@romkat.ro (today)?
>
>
> What you try here is typical FUD.
>
>
> Jörg
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:akos@romkat.ro]
> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> merged in OpenOffice.
> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice,
> more exactly
> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because
> the OO code
> is outdated compared with LO code.
> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice
No. You spread only bad propaganda.
Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that you have changed your
address from nagy.akos@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on this list here) to
akos@romkat.ro (today)?
What you try here is typical FUD.
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/11/2017 07:29 AM, Nagy �kos wrote:
> and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part from their income spend for OO.
You'd never know it from the TDF home page, but there are projects other
than LibreOffice under its mantle.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 12.01.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Dave:
> On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote:
>> Is the past on topic for the future?
>
> Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread,
I do not want to answer to your post, but the questions are caused by
the post of Nagy Ákos some minutes before.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Dave <no...@tasit.net>.
On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote:
> Is the past on topic for the future?
Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread, the answer
to your question is no. My post was nothing more than a simple
correction of Patricia's seemingly mistaken idea that the original LO
code came from AOO under ALv2, which would have been impossible, because
AOO did not exist when LO forked from OOo in September 2010.
> Is a dogmatist a good pontifex?
I understand the convoluted words of your rhetorical question, but the
point you are attempting to make eludes me.
> Regards
> Michael
Regards
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Is the past on topic for the future?
Is a dogmatist a good pontifex?
Regards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
Hello guys.
It stays as it is. Currently a merge is not possible. I assume this request
is not taken seriously on the LO side, since most information we had in
this discussion is pointing out the differences of both sister projects and
not advocate the things they share.
If anyone really wants to have a merge it will take him a lot of discussion
to convince both sides how much they have in common. Then if the positive
attitude seeds we would need a project which is done by both dev
communities. In order to build trust.
On the way we have some social issues to solve.
Even if Jörg expressed it in a emotional way, he is not wrong. Community
members of LO did damage their own renown. Maybe we have OO users that do
the same with our renown without our knowledge.
I do not see how this discussion can successfully stay on target. I would
like to point out this discussion was in my opinion mostly professional
conducted. That is a good sign in general. And I thank every one for the
try. I would like to see more of this professionalism from guests on our
list. Thanks a lot.
toki <to...@gmail.com> schrieb am Fr., 13. Jan. 2017, 08:22:
> On 01/13/2017 12:48 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
> > I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence and even
> convergence of code, effort, vision
>
> The difference between the code base of the two projects is almost at
> the point where merging back into one is no longer a practical proposition.
>
> > and also because I did not see a solution to the situation.
>
> Reconcile yourself to having both LibO and AOo for as long their
> sponsoring foundations are willing to keep them.
>
> Personally, I am somewhat surprised that ODFTools hasn't been used as
> the core of an office suite that serves a specific target population
> that other office suites ignore.
>
> jonathon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --
Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/13/2017 12:48 AM, Louis Su�rez-Potts wrote:
> I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence and even convergence of code, effort, vision
The difference between the code base of the two projects is almost at
the point where merging back into one is no longer a practical proposition.
> and also because I did not see a solution to the situation.
Reconcile yourself to having both LibO and AOo for as long their
sponsoring foundations are willing to keep them.
Personally, I am somewhat surprised that ODFTools hasn't been used as
the core of an office suite that serves a specific target population
that other office suites ignore.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Louis Suárez-Potts <ls...@gmail.com>.
On 12 January 2017 at 18:29, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> S.
> (speaking here only as an AOO community member)
Thanks, Simon. I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence
and even convergence of code, effort, vision--I mean between LO and
AOO. Would still be nice, if only for the sake of large-scale users.
I left AOO PMC a while ago, in part because of other calls on my time,
and also because I did not see a solution to the situation.
best
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
Hi Dave, all.
On 12 Jan 2017 22:50, "Dave Fisher" <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far
as I know the sequence of events is:
OpenOffice.org was originally dual licensed under LGPLv2 and SISSL (OSI
approved but now retired). With v3 we changed the license to LGPLv3 only.
When Oracle bought Sun, OO.o was licensed just under LGPLv3.
Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source
OpenOffice.org (GPL2).
At the time of purchase, the proprietary version was called "StarOffice";
Oracle changed the name of this proprietary version to Oracle Open Office.
TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under
GPL2
LibreOffice was only under LGPLv3 at this point as any other choice would
have required the copyright owner to relicense. At some point (not sure
when) TDF requested contributions be made under both LGPLv3 and MPLv2 in
the hope of future relicensing, and invited Oracle to participate.
Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed
to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy.
IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by
an IBM employee following ASF policy.
The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed
software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony
code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all
the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady
although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being
contributed back to AOO.
I doubt TDF could have integrated all the contributions to LO it received
under LGPLv3 and MPLv2 any other way.
That is the sequence.
One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what
happens here.
Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the
benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes
to consume AL2 software.
The license a community uses is an expression of its outlook and norms.
Apache and TDF have differing outlooks (although they have remarkably
similar governance) so it's no surprise their license choices differ as
well. I'd hesitate to declare either Apache or TDF's choices as better for
everything and consequently have advocated for both at various times.
Cheers,
S.
(speaking here only as an AOO community member)
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
>> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
>> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
>> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
>> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
>> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.
>>
>> An article about this:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with
-openoffice-update/
>>
>> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:
>>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>>>
>>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave <no...@tasit.net>:
>>>
>>>>> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>>>>>> merged in OpenOffice.
>>>>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
>>>>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
>>>>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>>>> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>>>>
>>>> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January
2011
>>>> under the same license.
>>>>
>>>> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to
the
>>>> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>>>>
>>>> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
>>>> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
>>>> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>>>>
>>>> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
>>>> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and
will
>>>> never be read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as I know the sequence of events is:
Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source OpenOffice.org (GPL2).
TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2
Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy.
IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an IBM employee following ASF policy.
The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO.
That is the sequence.
One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what happens here.
Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to consume AL2 software.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
>> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
>> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
>> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
>> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
>> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.
>>
>> An article about this:
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/
>>
>> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:
>>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>>>
>>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave <no...@tasit.net>:
>>>
>>>>> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>>>>>> merged in OpenOffice.
>>>>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
>>>>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
>>>>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>>>> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
>>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>>>>
>>>> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
>>>> under the same license.
>>>>
>>>> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
>>>> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>>>>
>>>> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
>>>> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
>>>> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>>>>
>>>> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
>>>> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
>>>> never be read.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
Thanks for the correction.
On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy �kos wrote:
> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.
>
> An article about this:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/
>
> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltez�ssel, Tsutomu Uchino �rta:
>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>>
>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave <no...@tasit.net>:
>>
>>> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy \ufffdkos wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>>>>> merged in OpenOffice.
>>>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
>>>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
>>>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>>> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>>>
>>> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
>>> under the same license.
>>>
>>> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
>>> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>>>
>>> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
>>> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
>>> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>>>
>>> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
>>> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
>>> never be read.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>.
https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html
Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache
2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011,
but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010.
An article about this:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/
2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta:
> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
>
> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave <no...@tasit.net>:
>
>> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>>>> merged in OpenOffice.
>>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
>>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
>>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>>
>> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
>> under the same license.
>>
>> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
>> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>>
>> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
>> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
>> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>>
>> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>>
>> --
>> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
>> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
>> never be read.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Tsutomu Uchino <ha...@gmail.com>.
See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia
2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave <no...@tasit.net>:
> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> >> merged in OpenOffice.
> >
> > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>
> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
>
> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
> under the same license.
>
> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
>
> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
>
> Please let's not try to rewrite history.
>
> --
> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
> never be read.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Dave <no...@tasit.net>.
On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
>
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts:
https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/
In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011
under the same license.
Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the
ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2.
In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of
the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked
from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code.
Please let's not try to rewrite history.
--
Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to
this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will
never be read.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 11.01.2017 um 22:49 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
> have another point of view :-D
>
IMO there are a lot of points of view possible, when you are talking
about copyleft. And most of these are valid, if you don't say, that one
point is the only true point of view.
And one should never forget: Strong, weak or no copyleft may be an
interesting point, but most important is, that it is Free Software.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by esh1907 <es...@gmail.com>.
A model of 100% volunteer based software project is futile.
Only a combination of payed workers and volunteers is viable.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
>
>> Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>
>> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
>>> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
>>> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
>>> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
>>> anything that uses their licenses.
>>>
>> The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
>> promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
>> no copyleft.
>>
>> But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
>> nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
>> permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
>>
> I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy rights
> in favour of copy left.
> Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on
> this model right from the start.
> If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least difficulties,
> or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to sloppy.
>
>> That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
>> licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.
>>
>> That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.
>>
>> For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
>>
> Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed
> source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it,
> but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
> Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major
> topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less
> important for users which license a software has then data security.
>
>> If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
>> easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
>> control, what people do with your product.
>>
> I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you are
> able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left, makes
> you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
> If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
> Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
> I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. There is this Idea
> floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true. It
> depends on the organisation of the community.
>
>> Kind regards
>> Michael
>>
> Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
> have another point of view :-D
>
> All the best
> Peter
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
Maybe market based is the wrong expression. How about market oriented...?
# We are more innovative!
# Have more features!
# We have faster release cycles!
# We are no 1 open Source Office suite.
They are not community focused arguments, not open source focused arguments.
All the Best
Peter
Dr. Michael Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de> schrieb am Sa., 14.
Jan. 2017, 08:52:
> Am 14.01.2017 um 00:55 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> >
>
> > You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are
> > market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue.
> > What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
> > In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a
> > commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on
> > the Open Office future.
>
> The question is, what "market based" mean.
>
> If it means, that we take care of the users needs and wishes, it is a
> good attitude. Observing the user experience and their work flows is
> very usefull for example.
>
> In the Free Software community some developers make good code, which is
> useable only by geeks. And it is also not really usefull to create the
> 10000th editor or the 1000th Linux distribution.
>
> If "market based" means to look how to earn the best profit, it might be
> userunfriendly.
>
> Kind regards
> Michael
>
>
>
> --
Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 14.01.2017 um 00:55 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>
> You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are
> market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue.
> What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
> In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a
> commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on
> the Open Office future.
The question is, what "market based" mean.
If it means, that we take care of the users needs and wishes, it is a
good attitude. Observing the user experience and their work flows is
very usefull for example.
In the Free Software community some developers make good code, which is
useable only by geeks. And it is also not really usefull to create the
10000th editor or the 1000th Linux distribution.
If "market based" means to look how to earn the best profit, it might be
userunfriendly.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> schrieb am Sa., 14. Jan. 2017, 04:56:
> Hi -
>
> If Oracle or IBM thought they had any additional advantage with Apache
> OpenOffice development then the history of this project would differ.
>
Obviously however you do not know what their reasons for the decision is.
They could have calculated that buying ms office is cheaper or more viable.
Incompatibility is still a major issue.
But that's not my point. You can exchange the companies with whatever you
like. The situation in general remains the same.
--
Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
If Oracle or IBM thought they had any additional advantage with Apache OpenOffice development then the history of this project would differ.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 13, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 12.01.2017 11:00, Pedro wrote:
>> Hi Peter
>>
>>> If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
>>> Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
>>> I do not believe that a lot of people understand this.
>>
>> Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with the Product".
>>
>> I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same product.
> Never forget, all of this is a mind game. IF you fear something or feel confident it is mostly based on your own weighting of arguments.
>
> I assumed that if you work with a Product, then not all is released. Parts of it, are closed, and therefore individual, but share a common base with other competitors.
> This can drop production/development cost or can shortcut knowledge original did not available.
>
> I can not imagin that you can directly earn from a Product if you only have copy left license model. Some do, but this is only working if all other commiters more or less donate to the cause.
> Or you have a complex method on lesser and full copy left structure. Which can results in issue over time, if something that develops differently then you have planned.
>
> The risk over time, is on Permissive licence lower. Also if this is viable option, you can always retreat from the project without loosing your invest.
>
> For us it means that Oracle, IBM can always start to market their own Product without the need to return something towards Open Office. From Oracles or IBM position this is a strong one.
> However I do not believe that the community is at the same time in a weaker position, because Open Source is in my eyes not bound to market or earning strategy. Unlike companies we can take time.
> You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue. What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
> In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on the Open Office future.
>
>> Regards,
>> Pedro
> my best regards
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
On 12.01.2017 11:00, Pedro wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
>> If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
>> Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
>> I do not believe that a lot of people understand this.
>
> Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a
> copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with
> the Product".
>
> I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a
> business model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice".
> Using a copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the
> same product.
Never forget, all of this is a mind game. IF you fear something or feel
confident it is mostly based on your own weighting of arguments.
I assumed that if you work with a Product, then not all is released.
Parts of it, are closed, and therefore individual, but share a common
base with other competitors.
This can drop production/development cost or can shortcut knowledge
original did not available.
I can not imagin that you can directly earn from a Product if you only
have copy left license model. Some do, but this is only working if all
other commiters more or less donate to the cause.
Or you have a complex method on lesser and full copy left structure.
Which can results in issue over time, if something that develops
differently then you have planned.
The risk over time, is on Permissive licence lower. Also if this is
viable option, you can always retreat from the project without loosing
your invest.
For us it means that Oracle, IBM can always start to market their own
Product without the need to return something towards Open Office. From
Oracles or IBM position this is a strong one.
However I do not believe that the community is at the same time in a
weaker position, because Open Source is in my eyes not bound to market
or earning strategy. Unlike companies we can take time.
You see that on the LO vs. OO discussion. Most of the LO argument are
market based one. If you think outside the market its all not an issue.
What Reamains is the strength of Open source as such.
In my eyes we are in a super strong position, as long as we have a
commiter base that work for the greater good. And I am very convinced on
the Open Office future.
> Regards,
> Pedro
my best regards
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
I will answer later today, I hope. Sorry for the delay.
Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org> schrieb am Do., 12. Jan. 2017, 11:01:
> Hi Peter
>
> > If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
> > Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
> > I do not believe that a lot of people understand this.
>
> Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a
> copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with
> the Product".
>
> I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business
> model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a
> copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same
> product.
>
> Regards,
> Pedro
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
> --
Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Re: Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Pedro <pe...@openmailbox.org>.
Hi Peter
> If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
> Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
> I do not believe that a lot of people understand this.
Can you elaborate on this point? I don't really see how using a
copyleftless license is better when your business "works directly with
the Product".
I see it as altruistic (like copyleft is communistic) but as a business
model, I really don't see how it is a "stronger choice". Using a
copyleftless license allows anyone else to build exactly the same
product.
Regards,
Pedro
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Copyleft vs Permissive
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
On 11.01.2017 11:00, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>
>> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
>> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
>> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
>> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
>> anything that uses their licenses.
> The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
> promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
> no copyleft.
>
> But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
> nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
> permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
I do not think copyleft gives you more control. You omit your copy
rights in favour of copy left.
Multi Licens policies are only possible if your developer team agrees on
this model right from the start.
If you try to build one afterwards, I would expect at least
difficulties, or even risks if your documentation on contributors is to
sloppy.
> That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
> licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.
>
> That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.
>
> For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
Endusers do not care about license policy in general. See the closed
source drivers in the Kernel. There was somewhat pressure to resolve it,
but a lot of pressure not to sentence it.
Also you can see in our Community that the Apache License is not a major
topic to them. Functionality is the major point. I think it is even less
important for users which license a software has then data security.
> If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
> easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
> control, what people do with your product.
I think the license model is much tied to your business modell. If you
are able to build services around code, the protection of the copy left,
makes you more secure on the market. Since no one can break out.
If your model works directly with the Product, the flexibility of the
Permissive license can be the stronger choice.
I do not believe that a lot of people understand this. There is this
Idea floating around copy left == communism, which I think is not true.
It depends on the organisation of the community.
> Kind regards
> Michael
Thanks michael for your explanations. Was really interesting, even if I
have another point of view :-D
All the best
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by "Dr. Michael Stehmann" <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
> anything that uses their licenses.
The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are
promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has
no copyleft.
But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because
nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the
permission of the copyright holder (programmer).
That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these
licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft.
That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code.
For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom.
If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much
easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more
control, what people do with your product.
Kind regards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>.
Hello,
anything is possible if you want it. And if you really want it, a merger
with LO is also possible.
The problem is that AOO is way behind. Even if you don't want to hear
it: Too little has happened over the last several years. Ages ago we
discussed what to do about version 5.0 - nothing about it has happened
so far. LO has overtaken us by far. Sometime ago we discussed what to do
about version 4.2 - and now we seem to be discussing version 4.1.4. That
would only be a very minor step.
And no, you don't say EOD because the merger is, allegedly, not
possible. You say EOD because it hurts you to acknowledge the
shortcomings of the work on AOO and you want to put that behind you and
to ltrundle on in the old slow speed.
And, @ J�rg, you might want to be more careful about the choice of your
words. Just because someone says something you don't want to hear what
they say is not necessarily bad propaganda or an attack. The way you
react reminds me of Trump's tweets to criticism. And it is not the way
to conduct an orderly discussion.
Max
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann:
>> Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy �kos:
>>> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
>>> Each developer own our part from code.
>>>
>>> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
>>> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
>>> with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
>>> OOo code, and close it.
>>>
>> So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible.
>> That is a good reason for EOD.
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael
> +1
>
> Regards, Matthias
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann:
> Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:
>> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
>> Each developer own our part from code.
>>
>> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
>> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
>> with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
>> OOo code, and close it.
>>
> So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible.
> That is a good reason for EOD.
>
> Regards
> Michael
+1
Regards, Matthias
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by RA Stehmann <an...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de>.
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos:
> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
> Each developer own our part from code.
>
> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
> with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
> OOo code, and close it.
>
So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible.
That is a good reason for EOD.
Regards
Michael
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>.
The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF.
Each developer own our part from code.
And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the
licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open,
with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the
OOo code, and close it.
2017. 01. 11. 11:55 keltezéssel, FR web forum írta:
> TDF could be give up these copyleft licences.
> Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this
> LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence
> :-)
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "Patricia Shanahan" <pa...@acm.org>
> À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26
> Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice
>
> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
>
> For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
> writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
> have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
> not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
> anything that uses their licenses.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
TDF could be give up these copyleft licences.
Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this
LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence
:-)
----- Mail original -----
De: "Patricia Shanahan" <pa...@acm.org>
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26
Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice
On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> merged in OpenOffice.
That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
anything that uses their licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy kos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> merged in OpenOffice.
That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier
to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have
kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation.
For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was
writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should
have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does
not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to
anything that uses their licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>.
2017. 01. 11. 10:26 keltezéssel, Raphael Bircher írta:
> Hi Akos
>
> Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
>> merged in OpenOffice.
> As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put
> there code to Apache License 2.0.
We talk about more then 1500 individual contributors.
>
>> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly
>> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code
>> is outdated compared with LO code.
> How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO
> maintain there code. Please come with facts.
Sorry, maybe not the outdated expression is a good expression but
someting similar.
AOO has 13598 commits from 2011 (including webpage changes) and LO has
aprox 100000 commits in same time.
I know that only the commit number not equal with the code quality, but
represent progress in code quality too.
https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice/commits/summary
https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice/commits/summary
>
>> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some
>> other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't
>> have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc.
>> You can compare the development trends:
>
> Libre Office is maybe popular at the Linux world, and even there exist
> Users who kick LO and install OpenOffice. There are big features in LO
> who simply shipped over to LO. Native SVG Import. Mac OS X 64 Bit
> port, and the Sidebar for exemple. Many of the added Features are
> simply buddled Extensions.
>
> More feature dosen't mean a better product. If you add a load of new
> bugs to the software in the same time, the user will not be happy.
You are right, if the new features means only new bugs. But some
features is necessary for daily work. And many features is very useful
and for many people is required:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.4
...
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.3
>
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki)
>> https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code)
>>
>> Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation,
>> and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part
>> from their income spend for OO.
> Apache spend more or less only the infrastructure. TDF and ASF are not
> comparebel. ASF does not found individual projects at all. Not even
> the ApacheCon is founded over ASF budget.
>
> Regards, Raphael
>
>
>>
>> 2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice
>>> community.
>>>
>>> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of
>>> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should
>>> talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their
>>> foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's
>>> biggest open source software foundation and if the document
>>> foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice).
>>> The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop,
>>> tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the
>>> document foundation to work together.
>>>
>>>
>>> Suhail Ansari
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
On 01/11/2017 08:26 AM, Raphael Bircher wrote:
> How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO
> maintain there code. Please come with facts.
Outdated is the wrong word.
The code base for LibO and AOo have diverged enough, that an extension
created for one, usually will not function as expected on the other.
Templates created for AOo 4.1.3 will function as expected with LibO 5.2,
and lower. There is about a 70% chance that they will function as
expected with LibO 5.3 beta.
Templates created for LibO 5.3 beta will fail around 70% of the time,
when used with AOo 4.1.3.
Templates created for LibO 5.2 will function as expected, around 70% of
the time, with AOo 4.1.3.
Thus far, in my testings of extensions created for AOo, there is a 100%
failure rate, when installing on LibO 5.3 beta.
I haven't tested extensions on AOo 4.1.3, yet.
Documentation for LibO 5.3 won't help users of AOo 4.1.3.
Documentation for LibO 5.2 might help users of AOo 4.1.x.
Documentation for AOo 4.1.3 won't necessarily help users of LibO 5.3.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Raphael Bircher <rb...@gmail.com>.
Hi Akos
Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>:
> Hi,
>
> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
> merged in OpenOffice.
As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put there
code to Apache License 2.0.
> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly
> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code
> is outdated compared with LO code.
How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO
maintain there code. Please come with facts.
> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some
> other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't
> have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc.
> You can compare the development trends:
Libre Office is maybe popular at the Linux world, and even there exist
Users who kick LO and install OpenOffice. There are big features in LO who
simply shipped over to LO. Native SVG Import. Mac OS X 64 Bit port, and
the Sidebar for exemple. Many of the added Features are simply buddled
Extensions.
More feature dosen't mean a better product. If you add a load of new bugs
to the software in the same time, the user will not be happy.
> https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki)
> https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code)
>
> Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation,
> and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part
> from their income spend for OO.
Apache spend more or less only the infrastructure. TDF and ASF are not
comparebel. ASF does not found individual projects at all. Not even the
ApacheCon is founded over ASF budget.
Regards, Raphael
>
> 2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice
>> community.
>>
>> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads.
>> My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the
>> document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache
>> software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source
>> software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we
>> can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source
>> software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good
>> for both ASF and the document foundation to work together.
>>
>>
>> Suhail Ansari
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
--
Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Nagy Ákos <ak...@romkat.ro>.
Hi,
it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be
merged in OpenOffice.
The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly
the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code
is outdated compared with LO code.
The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some
other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't
have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc.
You can compare the development trends:
https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki)
https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code)
Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation,
and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part
from their income spend for OO.
2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community.
>
> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together.
>
>
> Suhail Ansari
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Peter Kovacs <le...@gmail.com>.
I think we are not in a position to successfully ask what you would like us
to do. In the matter of the fact I do not believe LO does have much respect
for us, and some of us are deeply hurt.
Maybe the same on LO side.
And I am not convinced this will heal just quickly. The simplest solution
is to be patient. The complicated is to find a way to heal the wounds that
are there.
Have fun!
Peter
suhail ansari <ia...@outlook.com> schrieb am Di., 10. Jan. 2017,
19:55:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community.
>
> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My
> suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document
> foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software
> foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software
> foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one
> product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software
> products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF
> and the document foundation to work together.
>
>
> Suhail Ansari
>
> --
Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort
wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks
werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre
Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch
kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre
Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google
konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht
wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu
verhandeln.
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Matthias Seidel <ma...@hamburg.de>.
The only way to stop this kind of discussion is to concentrate on the
release of OpenOffice 4.1.4.
We have enough code, we have enough translations. So let's move on! ;-)
Kind regards, Matthias Seidel
Am 11.01.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Jörg Schmidt:
>> From: suhail ansari [mailto:iamsuhailansari@outlook.com]
>> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for
>> OpenOffice community.
>>
>> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of
>> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation
>> should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge
>> their foundation with Apache software foundation because
> -1
>
> The original does not have to speak with the fork.
> I will never forget how often LO members of OO have spoken badly.
>
>> Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and
>> if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one
>> product (OpenOffice).
> -1
>
> I am only a committer, but I will never agree. If the TDF join the ASF I will
> leave the ASF.
>
>> It
>> will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work
>> together.
> But not good for the quality of the product OpenOffice. We can see at LO every day
> what is the hurried development for the quality.
>
>
>
> Greetings,
> Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Jörg Schmidt <jo...@j-m-schmidt.de>.
> From: suhail ansari [mailto:iamsuhailansari@outlook.com]
> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for
> OpenOffice community.
>
> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of
> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation
> should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge
> their foundation with Apache software foundation because
-1
The original does not have to speak with the fork.
I will never forget how often LO members of OO have spoken badly.
> Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and
> if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one
> product (OpenOffice).
-1
I am only a committer, but I will never agree. If the TDF join the ASF I will
leave the ASF.
> It
> will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work
> together.
But not good for the quality of the product OpenOffice. We can see at LO every day
what is the hurried development for the quality.
Greetings,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by Hagar Delest <de...@gmail.com>.
CCed to OP (not subscribed to the list).
Le 10/01/2017 20:21, FR web forum a crit :
> Already discussed
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201608.mbox/%3CCALR982mG0baX7i4StBissjVOYDOgfb%3DVMzgOs-0%3DqezMZyi2cg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> De: "suhail ansari" <ia...@outlook.com>
> : dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Envoy: Mardi 10 Janvier 2017 19:43:04
> Objet: future of OpenOffice
>
> Hi,
>
> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community.
>
> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together.
>
>
> Suhail Ansari
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Posted by FR web forum <oo...@free.fr>.
Already discussed
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201608.mbox/%3CCALR982mG0baX7i4StBissjVOYDOgfb%3DVMzgOs-0%3DqezMZyi2cg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
----- Mail original -----
De: "suhail ansari" <ia...@outlook.com>
À: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Envoyé: Mardi 10 Janvier 2017 19:43:04
Objet: future of OpenOffice
Hi,
My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community.
OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together.
Suhail Ansari
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org