Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Don't Expect an OpenOffice/LibreOffice Merger

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the why-can't-we-just-get-along dept.

Open Source 192

Since Oracle has decided to give OpenOffice back to the community, a lot of people wondered if there would be some sort of re-unification with the ex-Oracle and the Document Foundation run by a lot of the original involved folks. The latter has released a statement saying, "the development of TDF community and LibreOffice is going forward as planned, and we are always willing to include new members and partners. We will provide as many information as we can with the progress of the situation. We are currently making every possible effort to offer a smooth transition to the project."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oblig (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871514)

First.

It is not OpenOffice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871584)

It is OpenOffice.org

Re:It is not OpenOffice (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871626)

So after all that work of building up a brand with the horribly awkward name "OpenOffice.org", now they're going to throw it all away and try to get an even more awkward name accepted.

They must like a challenge.

Re:It is not OpenOffice (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871692)

So after all that work of building up a brand with the horribly awkward name "OpenOffice.org"

There may have been some feet stomping and pleading, but to virtually every person I've ever spoken to it was just "OpenOffice".

Re:It is not OpenOffice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872124)

They should have called it PissOffice instead, then worked out some sort of backronym.

Re:It is not OpenOffice (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872896)

They must like a challenge.

Remember, you're talking about the same general group of people that named a pixel editor "GIMP".

Challenge doesn't even begin to cover the concept.

Re:It is not OpenOffice (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872746)

It is OpenOffice.org

Shouldn't that be Gnu/OpenOffice.org?

Who cares? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871610)

Both suck. Do not want.

What? (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871640)

Why would I expect a merger? It feels like they only forked a couple of months ago.

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871732)

Yes, where are these "people".

The only thing I expect is that one, if not both, project to be abandoned.

Re:What? (-1, Offtopic)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871874)

Hi Microsoft shill?

Re:What? (1, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872102)

Pro tip: Do not reply to anonymous trolls (aka feeding the trolls)
Let moderators set their score to -1 so that they fade away in frustration.

Re:What? (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872828)

Not so. Negative mods attract attention also. This is why I suspect they removed the descriptors from the first time a comment gets modded. Since ACs can only get modded down once, it helps to make it go unnoticed.

Re:What? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871794)

That was my thought, merging at this point would just be confusing. However, changing LibreOffice to actually be the Latin root would be a welcome change, if only for the people who don't know that it isn't named after an astrological sign.

Re:What? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872522)

I dunno. The image of a balanced office package seems just as good as a free office package.

Re:What? (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871926)

Why would I expect a merger? It feels like they only forked a couple of months ago.

I'm trying to recall ... didn't they strip out a bunch of functionality due to ownership issues?

They might put that back in if they actually did strip it in the first place ... I think not having a bunch of different free/open/libre/emancipated/shiny/awesome-Office suites might make for less confusion over all. It certainly might ensure that people actually get a viable alternative to Microsoft Office.

Because, really ... "honestly mom, you should change to Libre Office, that Open Office from 2 years ago is so passe" ... I just don't see that helping the cause of coming up with a free alternative. I'm not really willing to go there for myself even.

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872110)

You just have to say that it changed name from OpenOffice to LibreOffice for the new versions.
It happens all the time with closed-source software, and people don't care.

(yes it's slightly wrong because we know that it's not just a rename, but it's fot the best)

Re:What? (1, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872184)

I pretty much went with Libre the day after it came out, because seeing the Oracle logo on the OpenOffice splash screen gave me a full-body shiver every time I opened it.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872942)

I pretty much went with Libre the day after it came out, because seeing the Oracle logo on the OpenOffice splash screen gave me a full-body shiver every time I opened it.

really? why? why is this interesting? it just tells me that you have knee-jerk responses to things and use emotions and feelings to evaluate software.

Re:What? (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35873092)

No: it tells you he has used Oracle products before, and has not yet recovered his composure. Some people never do!

Re:What? (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872314)

I'm trying to recall ... didn't they strip out a bunch of functionality due to ownership issues?

I think it was mostly look and feel items, and dead unused code. [cnet.com]

OOo had actually not gained much (some say it lost quite a bit) from the days when it was StarOffice. Significant portions of the large document (read: book sized) management capabilities, (pagination, cross-references, document linking and embedding, table and illustration management, etc), actually deteriorated significantly once Sun and Oracle took over.

Re:What? (5, Interesting)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872332)

Actually, LibreOffice has several features that the newest OpenOffice.org lacks. Sun/Oracle dragged their feet on accepting contributions from outsiders. Part of this was due to the fact that Sun/Oracle wanted to charge money for certain features, part was simple Not Invented Here syndrome. Either way, when LibreOffice split off from OpenOffice.org it was already the better fork.

Now that LibreOffice has shown that it can organize a community, set up the needed infrastructure, and make a release that is better than Oracle's release Oracle is starting to get concerned about what this says about Oracle's ability to lead in other Free Software communities. Larry Ellison paid a lot of money for Sun's various Free Software businesses, and he does *not* want people getting the idea that these communities would be better off if they were forked away from Oracle.

Re:What? (3, Insightful)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872538)

Part of this was due to the fact that Sun/Oracle wanted to charge money for certain features, part was simple Not Invented Here syndrome.

...and part of it was that Sun wanted developers to hand over ownership to them; and that became "Oracle wants developers to hand over ownership to them". IIRC that fact, the way they were treating Java devs, and the major supporting companies' various reasons for not cooperating with Oracle, were the three main reasons for the fork.

Re:What? (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872930)

Some communities are able to get over signing copyright assignation forms, although it definitely creates some friction. Even the FSF has problems getting copyright assignation for GNU Emacs on occasion, and you have to be pretty paranoid if you are worried about the FSF misusing Emacs source code. From what I understood, however, the problems went deeper than that. Even those people that were willing to assign their copyrights to Sun, and who provided patches that were clearly useful had problems getting things accepted. Unless you were a Sun employee you were not going to have much influence in the project.

Re:What? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872608)

Part of this was due to the fact that Sun/Oracle wanted to charge money for certain features

Oracle? Charge money? Say it aint so!!

Either way, when LibreOffice split off from OpenOffice.org it was already the better fork.

That's good to know ... as I said in my other post, for some reason I was thinking they had to remove a bunch of functionality written in Java that Oracle still owned and wouldn't let people keep using ... obviously, I was wrong. I'd been under the impression that LibreOffice had less functionality.

Oracle is starting to get concerned about what this says about Oracle's ability to lead in other Free Software communities

See, "Oracle" and "Free Software" areessentially antithetical concepts ... within weeks of the take over, I remember people saying that they could no longer download the drivers and other free bits of Solaris stuff that used to be readily accessible. Unless you had the very expensive Oarcle support contract, you were SOL. And, in some cases, these were old machines past their formal EOL that were still limping along.

Anything which was free before Oracle is going to be better off forked from Oracle.

Oracle -- One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellison. I was actually told that joke by an Oracle employee.

Re:What? (2)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35873150)

Anything which was free before Oracle is going to be better off forked from Oracle.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, for Oracle at least, most of the software, and all of the really interesting software, that Oracle bought in the Sun acquisition is Free Software. Oracle execs apparently assumed that they could throw their weight around a bit and that the projects would fall in line. In the case of LibreOffice that was definitely not the case. All of a sudden opinions like yours (and mine) are starting to look workable. Oracle could realistically lose control of several of their Free Software projects (including MySQL) if it is not careful.

Re:What? (4, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872638)

Because, really ... "honestly mom, you should change to Libre Office, that Open Office from 2 years ago is so passe" ... I just don't see that helping the cause of coming up with a free alternative. I'm not really willing to go there for myself even.

And all this time, I have been just installing the software and renaming the icons Word, Excel, and so on. I didn't realize I was supposed to tell them the name of the programs as well as they weren't using the Microsoft versions.

Re:What? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872698)

And all this time, I have been just installing the software and renaming the icons Word, Excel, and so on. I didn't realize I was supposed to tell them the name of the programs as well as they weren't using the Microsoft versions.

I live around 1500kms from my parents ... when they bought their computer I told them in no uncertain terms that I could not, and would not, be their tech support.

I've found it has actually caused them to learn enough to use the computer as they see fit, and I don't care what they use for software.

I'm much happier that way. :-P

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872076)

Because they asked Oracle for the brand. Oracle gives them the brand, they don't want it.

"The group said it has invited Oracle to join the new foundation and donate the OpenOffice brand to the community. Pending a decision by Oracle, the foundation has launched LibreOffice."
http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/09/29/openoffice-foundation-splits-from-oracle.aspx

"It's also been asked to donate the OpenOffice.org brand that it owns to the community."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/28/openoffice_independence_from_oracle/

Re:What? (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872578)

Errr, no. There is no transfer of ownership of the brand. From the previous article's effing summary:

Edward Screven, Oracle's Chief Corporate Architect, said the company intends upon 'working immediately with community members to further the continued success of Open Office.'

Re:What? (4, Interesting)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872156)

Exactly right.

Further more, everybody who mattered in the developer base already bailed out of Oracle, and is working for LibreOffice. There is very little that Oracle has left to merge.

Oracle has thrown in the towel, (but you can rest assured there will be a few poison pills in anything they release that is not already in LibreOffice) and at best the open-sourcing of this project is their way of telling the remaining developers on their payroll, "here's your hat, what's your hurry". Those that didn't leave probably didn't because they needed the pay check.

Point, Set, and Match to LibreOffice. This is probably one of the most significant watershed events in Open Source development. Even more so than when XFree86 was forked and Xorg totally took over X servers on every distribution, leaving XFree86 into obscurity.

That being said, the article title does NOT square with the source, which makes no blanket statements about NO possible merger. I read it completely the opposite way, they will accept new members, and they may well cherry pick the released code.

Re:What? (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872612)

they may well cherry pick the released code.

They do already. They also contribute upstream, where possible within upstream's licensing labyrinth.

Re:What? (0)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872498)

there's lots of couples that form a merger only a few months after first forking. Sometimes they last but usually fail in the first 5 years.

Re:What? (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872628)

"first forking" are not two words meant to be used so close to one another. Now I've got this image in my mind...

It would be... (5, Informative)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871656)

a dangerous move to merge back , Oracle cannot be trusted.

Re:It would be... (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871768)

That's kind of what I was thinking. The reason for moving away from Oracle was because it cannot be trusted. They asked for the name and did not get it so they moved on. Now Oracle says "we're sorry, here you can have the name!" Can Oracle be trusted not to pull some sort of stunt if it were accepted?

To Oracle: You're a big heavy company. You throw your weight around a lot. We don't like it, we don't like you and you simply can't be trusted any more than Microsoft or those of your ilk.

Re:It would be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871994)

Speak for yourself. Not everyone here foams at the mouth because a company is big. It's highly likely that you are in some way involved in the big bad meanies' software somehow and if not definatly in their infrastructure.

Re:It would be... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872062)

Eat shit, shill

Re:It would be... (1)

spinkham (56603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872502)

I don't care if a company is big, but I do care if a company is Oracle.

Larry, thanks for BTRFS. Otherwise, F*** You.

Re:It would be... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872296)

Novell, the leaders of the LibreOffice fork, on the other hand, are completely trustworthy?

Re:It would be... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872708)

Novell, the owner of SUSE Linux? Novell, one of the biggest contributors to open source? No way, they're nowhere near as trustworthy as those guys at Oracle!

Re:It would be... (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 3 years ago | (#35873034)

Novell, the owner of SUSE Linux?

...and bankrolled by Microsoft?

really? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871776)

First you ask Oracle to release the brand, then when they do so, you act like you couldn't care.
I hope no one sees this and thinks the rest of the FOSS movement is alike, but who am I kidding?

LibreOffice is such a crappy name that it, alone, should make you merge back.

Re:really? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871844)

They could call it ShitOffice for all I cared. It can save in docx format, not perfectly of course, but better than Office can save in Open Document format, and that means within the next month or two OpenOffice is coming off all our machines.

Re:really? (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872090)

Funny choice, because frankly unless there only goal is to make it popular in France ShitOffice would probably be a better name than leber-office (which is how I've heard everyone pronounce it so far, followed by WTF or WTH? )

Seriously is there like a bylaw or something that says every damned FOSS app has to have a shitty/stupid/smartass name? Would you drink Fungus coffee? How about a Goatse choc bar? Maybe wash your hair with moneyshot shampoo? No? Then WTF!

Would have really been so God damned hard, would it have REALLY put you out, to simply name it something like Freedom Office? Or Sharing Office? Names matter folks and the pretentious bullshit names really don't help your cause. At least open office (which FYI NOBODY called it OO.o) gave it a nice friendly sounding name. its open, like open house. Simple, easy, smart.

So PLEASE for the love of all that is good and decent pick another damned name, or just bundle the damned thing with the Gimp and label under "shit nobody uses cause it just sounds nasty". I'd love to see FOSS guys name a soft drink, they'd probably be trying to sell ballsack cola or some shit, where the initials came out to something smug. Give me a break.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872552)

I agree.

However, I think sometimes these strange names are strange because they start off as pet projects, that nobody thought would turn into a huge enterprise. Of course that wasn't the case with LibreOffice... in which case, I agree with your sentiment.

Re:really? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872696)

Have you ever wondered if that name sounded that bad in other languages? You know, the stuff 90% of earth talks with...

Re:really? (3, Interesting)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872812)

Why does the name have to reflect the fact that it's free? Those types of names always sound pretentious, and "Freedom Office" is much worse than LibreOffice ever could be (which is impressive). I shouldn't have to feel like a hippy just because of my choice of office suite. (Then again, maybe some people want that.)

Re:really? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872042)

Had they released the brand when asked it would be fine. This is Oracle again playing games, they cannot be trusted.

Re:really? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872182)

Also, Oracle has not released the brand yet. They have merely announced a move in that direction, without giving details.

If Oracle actually donates the OpenOffice trademark to the Document Foundation, it would be substantial proof of their goodwill. But so far, they can still turn around and withhold any real concessions.

better name (2)

aahpandasrun (948239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871800)

LibreOffice is a better name anyway. OpenOffice.org sounds kind of infomercial-ish, and very 90s.

No it's not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871928)

When the average Joe can't even pronounce the name and ends up calling it "libber office", you have to admit it wasn't thought out very well. At least "open" is instantly recognizable and easy to pronounce. Marketing is for the masses, not the acedemics.

Re:No it's not (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871984)

Are you aware that there are languages other than English?

Re:No it's not (0)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872680)

Are you aware that there are languages other than English?

Whose are they? I don't think the slashdot crowd caters for third-world countries.

Re:No it's not (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872744)

The average Johan, Jacques, and Jesus have no problem with pronunciation. They're not exactly "academics". I find it hard to believe any English speaker would have trouble pronouncing "Libre". It would be /LIH-ber/ only if it were spelt "libber", just as with regular rules of English pronunciation. And those who can't get their heads around the "-re" suffix just need to think about "litre". You don't say /LEE-tray/, do you?

Re:No it's not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872994)

In American English it's spelled "liter".

But hold on here, you're contradicting yourself.

Why is "litre" "leet-er" but "libre" "lib-ray"? Should it also be "lib-er"? (Along with all the other -re words in British English such as centre, et al)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-re.2C_-er)

The reason is:
Libre is a loanword. It doesn't follow english rules because it's not english to begin with. I don't know why scoffing at people mispronouncing it if it's new to them is vogue.

On a somewhat related/interesting note (ok, maybe not really):
I'm native to Southern California, I went to the midwest recently. There's a road there named "Lima". By default, I pronounced it "Lee-ma" (like Peru), but it's actually "Lii-ma" (like the bean). Totally makes sense, and I had no problem adapting once corrected. But it goes to show you how pronunciation is silly.

Re:No it's not (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35873134)

You mean the beans dont come from Peru? My mother should have told me! (I live in the UK, and pronounce both words the same: like the mother of Lee).

Re:better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871948)

And to a lot of US users, "LibreOffice" makes you think of masked mexican wrestlers flying around your cubicles and breaking all your folding tables.

Re:better name (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872562)

This image is worse than the normal office parties how?

Re:better name (1)

jbonomi (1839286) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872674)

Which is extraordinarily appealing.

Re:better name (3, Insightful)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871954)

I am sorry, but LibreOffice is a horrible name. I thought it was only supposed to be a temporary name when they initially forked. It is not a very catchy name and it does not roll off the tongue very well. I agree that going back to OpenOffice.org might not be the best thing to do, but they really need a new name.

Re:better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872252)

And "OpenOffice.Org" isn't a stupid name for a piece of software?

Re:better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872364)

It is, but that doesn't excuse bad names like LibreOffice.

Re:better name (4, Interesting)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872352)

I like LibreOffice better than OpenOffice, but you're right. It's still a bad name.

Personally I think "Document Foundation" sounds impressive. They should go with that.

"Document Foundation Suite" sounds pretty good.

Re:better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872780)

It's "A Rose by any other name." Get over it, dude.

Re:better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872082)

Libre is also the brand name of tampon product

Re:better name (2)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872248)

OpenOffice sounds like OpenOrifice and should probably have the logo of two hands holding open a big O.

Nonetheless, it's still a better name than LibreOffice.

Re:better name (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872304)

So should they rename it GoatsePerfect, GoatseStar, or Goatse 1-2-3?

Re:better name (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872670)

I would use GoatseOffice.

Re:better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872790)

I would use GoatseOrifice.

There, fixed that misspelling for you.

It's just fine the way it is now! (5, Interesting)

chasm!killer (240191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871834)

Been using Libre Office since the first release (sorta buggy, but from second on, it's much more solid than Open Office ever was). Without the drag from the corporate offices, releases seem Really Fast (compared to the Open Office process) and easier to install, probably because of the shorter lag between underlying package releases and Office releases. I think the smaller group seems to have it together, and I sorta like it being fully independent (like Linux is). So in conclusion, let's just keep it the way it is....

Re:It's just fine the way it is now! (1)

mprinkey (1434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872288)

If they want to change the name back to OpenOffice, great. But the 3.3.1 release of LibreOffice is quite nice. I've gotten sucked into a lot of document generation in the last few months and I've found it to be quite stable and usable, even when dealing with MS Office .docx and .xlsx files.

I smell a trap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871860)

Something stinks.

It depends... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35871866)

As long as Oracle holds on to the Open Office trademark, I doubt that it will merge with LO. Personally, I don't think it matters any more. LO has the momentum, and community support. My guess? Most significant contributors to OOo will migrate to LO and TDF.

As always, the community will ... (1)

Jerry (6400) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871898)

decide which project survives and which one will languish by the number of their respective downloads and volunteer support.

What Oracle Could Do (5, Insightful)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35871908)

Oracle has three things of value for the community:

The Copyrights

Oracle still owns the copyrights of OpenOffice. Everybody will be able to use, modify, and distribute OpenOffice under the rights granted in the license, which never terminates. That license is LGPL2 for versions before 3.0, and LGPL3 for 3.0 beta and later, and the PDL for documentation. However, if the copyrights were transferred to a non-profit foundation, that foundation would be able to re-license OpenOffice as licenses develop. Laws change over time, and licenses must change to meet them. It would also be possible for the non-profit to enforce the larger part of the copyright rights. Currently, individual contributors or the project as their representative can enforce the copyright rights and license terms only on post-Oracle modifications. It would also be able to protect OpenOffice against pernicious changes in the commercial copyright holder. Products and companies get sold and change management. Remember that SCO was a "friendly" Linux company called Caldera before they went on their legal rampage. 501(c)3's, however, can devise covenants that keep their copyrights public property forever, and are legally limited to disburse their holdings only to other 501(c)3's on dissolution.

The Domain

OpenOffice.org is well known, and most instances of the software on user systems still reference it. Transferring this to a non-profit would be helpful.

Patents

Oracle might hold patents that read on OpenOffice, or could be used to defend it against other companies that bring patent suits. We can use Oracle's patents that are embedded in OpenOffice under the terms of the LGPL2 and LGPL3. But it would be nice to have some help in defending the program.

How Oracle Can Hurt

Oracle can hurt by trying to muscle the non-profit into accepting some sort of control from Oracle, be it a board position or something else. We have ample evidence that the project, since 1999, did poorly in gaining developers under a corporation's control. And if anything, Oracle makes other companies less comfortable than Sun would have. It's time for the project to be independent. The project should reject any offers that come with a demand for continuing control.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:What Oracle Could Do (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872290)

Imho, having an Oracle board member wouldn't be all that bad (as long as they aren't granted some sort of superiority over other board members). It could be a chance for Oracle to show good will towards LibreOffice and make positive contributions.

Re:What Oracle Could Do (1)

chasm!killer (240191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872324)

I have to agree, at least to the extent that granting them a board seat (one) and letting them contribute, as mentioned by Bruce Perens, would do a lot to heal the ill will. And if there are no other corporate board members (IBM?) then they could provide useful input from that point of view, too.

Re:What Oracle Could Do (1)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872672)

Then the board can elect them. It's forcing their way in that I think would be a problem.

Re:What Oracle Could Do (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872402)

However, if the copyrights were transferred to a non-profit foundation, that foundation would be able to re-license OpenOffice as licenses develop.

If they require copyright assignment of patches - which many companies and people won't do. In fact, it was one of the things people didn't like but Oracle needed to sell StarOffice. Or at least a license which essentially amounts to the same. It's the same with e.g. Qt, I know some code is in kdelibs because people won't sign Nokia's contribution license.

Re:What Oracle Could Do (1)

Bruce Perens (3872) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872692)

I think both people and companies are much more willing to assign copyrights to a non-profit than they would be to a for-profit. FSF uses copyright assignment.

Re:What Oracle Could Do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872992)

If Oracle closes the OO.org product line they do it intentionally and for reasons that have nothing to do with business. They don't want a community edition to succeed, they simply fire their developers and also killed the cloud office product. That is not a smart business decision.

It is better to keep the Americans Fortune 500s out because the way they do business cannot be trusted. And we don't understand their ways of making business. It is time to get it back in trusted European hands. Suse was fine until the Americans from Novell took over. KDE was fine unless the Americans added their layers of marketing bloat and corporate self-censorship. Star Office was fine. etc,

Libre Office as a trademark is a statement! No one wants Oracle, no one wants the American corporations. If they want to grant their assets, fine. Else, we don't need them

Less trustworthy (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872008)

Does anyone think this makes Oracle less trustworthy? Who knows when they might flip to a different mindset. Even with their impeccable reputation from before. Anyways this is not a surprise. The community wanted to break away from Oracle as soon as they acquired Sun. It just took a few weeks for Oracle to give them a reason.

Another Open Office based option. (4, Interesting)

Magee_MC (960495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872020)

Around the time of the split, I decided to give IBM Lotus Symphony a try. It's based on Open Office and so far I'm really happy with it. No real interest in going back to Open Office, and no need to try LibreOffice at this point.

Re:Another Open Office based option. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872114)

That's what I'm using at work - seems good, if you don't have a need for Base.

Re:Another Open Office based option. (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872312)

Link for the lazy: Lotus Symphony [lotus.com]

more forks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872096)

many people are thinking about mysql and vbox forks, why libreoffice merge?!?

I don't really care about merging, I just want... (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872174)

I just want a better search and replace, and the stupid web layout to work. Seems neither project can get these right.

Re:I don't really care about merging, I just want. (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872342)

So here's your chance to fix them yourself.

MS Office - One of the few Microsoft successes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872258)

MS Office is a fantastic product. Microsoft has done a few things right: Windows 7, Office, and Xbox. Everything else is garbage. Well, Visual Studio is ok too I guess. But that's it, otherwise, they're evil monsters!

Also: Oracle is evil, and I do not like that they own MySQL. SQLite is my db of choice now.

Re:MS Office - One of the few Microsoft successes (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872640)

Early versions of Office couldn't hold a candle to Smartware's integrated office suite (which, as far as I'm concerned, defined the minimal feature set for something to be a useful office application). Somewhere in the middle, it did great. Office today has too many hidden menus and non-obvious relationships between menu options. It's hard to find anything.

Re:MS Office - One of the few Microsoft successes (1)

praxis (19962) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872738)

Wait, you're saying that they are evil monsters except for Windows, Office, and Xbox. That's 3/4 of their major products.

Re:MS Office - One of the few Microsoft successes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872986)

Really? No... MS produces a lot of stuff. How about: Outlook, SharePoint, Vista, IE, IIS, SQL Server, .NET, SilverLight, Messenger, Works, Windows Media Player, Money, Movie Maker, Bing, Hotmail, Windows Mobile, Zune, Surface, C#, ....

Give me a break.

Re:MS Office - One of the few Microsoft successes (0)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872796)

Windows 7

Until there will be a version of Windows where Windows compatibility layer is implemented on top of a Unixlike core, Windows is by definition crap.
(Same applied to MacOS, but Apple released a Unixlike OS after all).

Wasn't the OO / LO split over java? (1)

stating_the_obvious (1340413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872280)

I thought LibreOffice was formed to create an office suite solution that was fully FOSS and not dependent on use of closed java solutions. If that's the case, wouldn't LibreOffice want to see OO go away? Why merge?

Re:Wasn't the OO / LO split over java? (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872426)

uh, you thought wrong.

The split was over longstanding governance issues. Java really had no particular role.

Re:Wasn't the OO / LO split over java? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35872960)

It does if the dependency issue still exists. I don't know why Java isn't dumped for something like Python..

EEE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872346)

Embrace, Extend then Extinguish

OfficeLibre (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35872598)

I was so hoping LibreOffice would go away as a term. It annoys me so much.

OfficeLibre -- In just about any language where Libre - root words are used, adjectives are Postfix, not Prefix.

It's OfficeLibre, not LibreOffice.

Damnation. We're now stuck with this awful name.

Too late, no direction (1)

BLToday (1777712) | more than 3 years ago | (#35873086)

Too late: I've already started to recommend LibreOffice to people moving from Office 2003. It's free, it's doesn't have the learning curve of Office 2007/2010. And unless you're doing some complicated Excel sheets, LibreOffice works fine for spreadsheets.

No direction: If the community has moved to LibreOffice, who's left supporting and maintaining OpenOffice?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?