Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

[Posted December 22, 2011 by corbet]

From:		Ross Gardler <rgardler-AT-opendirective.com>
To:		ooo-dev-AT-incubator.apache.org
Subject:		Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)
Date:		Wed, 21 Dec 2011 22:10:29 +0000
Message-ID:		<CAKQbXgDjgje3ZCdsBvhjxASCsodruHk2pfGO-cVR9oG9BEbXQQ@mail.gmail.com>

Today Team OpenOffice released a "White Label Office" based off the
3.3 code. The press release is rather clumsily worded and their
website is still not in compliance with our trademark policy. However,
I do recognise that TeamOO appear to be seeking to address our
concerns.

Götz Wohlberg said on this list [1] " We [TEAM OO]] want to be a
committer to the Apache OpenOffice
podling and we basically share the same goals." Similar sentiments
appear on their FAQ "Joined forces would be the best for everybody
involved and the entire user base" [2]

This seems like a strange statment since at least two members of the
TeamOO organisation are committers and PPMC members on this project,
at out invitation. However, we have yet to see any contribution to
AOO. It seems that work has been progressing on what is to all intents
and purposes a fork. This is damaging to the AOO project.

It might not be clear why this move is confusing and damaging. To
illustrate the situation we should consider articles written by
journalists who have not reached out to Apache for an explanation.
They are writing things like "Making all this even more
interesting--and, it must be said, confusing--is that Germany-based
Team OpenOffice.org on Wednesday published a release candidate based
on OpenOffice.org ... Is that the smell of yet another fork in the
works?"

So, how do we remove this confusion and move forwards?

I'm a glass half full kind of guy. I'm willing to accept that this is
all the result of really poor marketing (TeamOO are excellent
engineers, we can't expect them to also be excellent marketeers).

Assuming that my generous nature is not going to make a fool of me,
TeamOO must participate in this community as equals.

We welcome TeamOO as equals. This means no special privileges over
anyone else in relation to trademarks or code. This means no more
unnecessary finger pointing in press releases, or questionable
statements on the TeamOO website.  This means working with our
community, using the infrastructure and facilities provided by the
foundation.

I suggest that if TeamOO will take a moment to understand how AOO is
different from the benevolent dictatorship that existed in
OpenOffice.org they will find that their dream of building a
profitable and professional company around the code that is so
important to them will come true. Look around the Apache ecosystem,
there are thousands of such companies in our various projects. There
are no shortage of models to follow here.

Finally, a word on trademarks and development processes here at the ASF.

The Apache Software Foundation has been developing Open Source
Software for longer than OpenOffice.org has existed. We have over 100
top level projects and 50 incubating projects. The majority of these
projects are a fundamental part of a great many companies business
models. Our policies and processes have been defined to make it easy
for third parties to collaborate regardless of their business models.

It is unfortunate that Team OO found it necessary to include
statements such as "Team OpenOffice.org and the ASF could not reach an
agreement for a shared usage" of the OpenOffice.org name n their press
releases and FAQs. It was explained to Team OO, as far bask as
September, that their release could be "White Label Office powered by
Apache OpenOffice" or "Team OO powered by Apache OpenOffice" or pretty
much anything along those lines. These are the same rules that all
downstream releases must comply with.

It was also explained that Team OO is welcome to release the code as
"White Label Office" and give no credit to Apache other than that
required by the license (which requires no attribution to Apache, at
least in marketing materials).

These are the options open to TeamOO and everyone else who wishes to
use our code.

This is not a negotiable point.

Ross

[1] http://markmail.org/message/ygtfcphurfbh5jul
[2] http://teamopenoffice.org/en/faq-en.html
-- 
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 22, 2011 20:43 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

Well, well somebody who maintains an obscure fork (does anybody actually use Apache OOo, as oppose to LibreOffice?) complains about an even more obscure fork. Film at 11.

Anyway, that was my first reaction. I know perfectly well that the issue is somewhat more complex than that (for one, the complaint isn't exactly about forking no problem with that, per se), so please don't waste your time trying to educate me.

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 22, 2011 22:56 UTC (Thu) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link] (1 responses)

<comment class="potentially snarky">
It seems that AOO's e-mail composition software doesn't include spell (or context) checking. I humbly recommend passing things by a proofreader for a more professional result.
</comment>

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 23, 2011 2:09 UTC (Fri) by jmalcolm (subscriber, #8876) [Link]

If only they had an Apache project that included a spell checker. :-)

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 23, 2011 6:37 UTC (Fri) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] (4 responses)

(TeamOO are excellent engineers, we can't expect them to also be excellent marketeers)

Actuallly at this point it looks to me like Team OpenOffice is much better at marketing their fork than Apache is. For example, a month or two ago they approached my mailbox with a quite reasonable message announcing their existence and asking if I want to receive further updates (I did), and the present stir-up is also a way to prevent their project from slipping into obscurity.

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 23, 2011 7:24 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (3 responses)

As Libreoffice has shown already, the mere fact that they are doing a release unlike Apache makes them better at marketing. Releases are critically important for momentum. The license cleansing is being prioritized by Apache and that is a huge mistake.

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 23, 2011 21:41 UTC (Fri) by rlhamil (guest, #6472) [Link] (2 responses)

Sorry, best to get the legalities pure first - it means both commercial and non-commercial participants can have equal confidence that they're not opening themselves up for something unexpected.

Here's what I want to see:
* releases, for all the platforms (or their successors) supported when Oracle pulled out. I use OS X, Solaris (both SPARC and x86) and yes, occasionally Linux too, so I wouldn't want to see any of those go. And since too many places still use Windows, keeping OO alive there at least allows documents to be freed from proprietary formats, which (from an archival and interoperability perspective) might well be more important than than the code itself.

Here's who I want to have the first shot at profiting from any businesses that distribute or support releases:
* any of the original StarDivision developers that have remained active throughout
* other significant long-term active contributors, commercial or non-commercial

_If_ it contributes to a long future of releases, I'm fine with something that delays releases for a few months now, like making sure all the "i"'s are dotted and "t"'s crossed. Otherwise...not so much. But once the legalities are such that the risk is minimal and the licensing situation not overly confusing, I think releases should be time-based _unless_ there's a clear need for skipping one occasionally to catch up on bugs or something.

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 23, 2011 22:26 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

"Sorry, best to get the legalities pure first - it means both commercial and non-commercial participants can have equal confidence that they're not opening themselves up for something unexpected."

Like what? Apache wants to rewrite code under LGPL or GPL and only want to release under Apache license. That is not really that important or one that yields any more confidence. It can be a gradual process.

ASL only

Posted Jan 1, 2012 10:51 UTC (Sun) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

But Microsoft can still influence how things go from here on. If they have to live with open source, the Apache project is Microsoft's preferred direction. Apache doesn't use the dreaded GPL and its enforced sharing of source-code. (the dreaded Bruce three years ago)

NB: the link might require reloading to pull up the content, weird...

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 23, 2011 9:14 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (1 responses)

All the anti-fork comments made here apply equally to Apache OOo, as compared to LibreOffice. Technically, perhaps, LibreOffice is the fork but in practical terms LibreOffice has put in over a year's worth of work, while the other project has basically stood still since the "fork". So it is Apache OOo that is being "damaging" by ignoring all that work and trying to restart from version 3.3.

I'm not really against forking -- if either Apache or TeamOOo can produce a better office suite, why not. It's just that Apache is not in a position to complain.

Team OpenOffice White Label Office (powered by Apache Open Office)

Posted Dec 28, 2011 23:21 UTC (Wed) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link]

AOO is not starting from 3.3.0. The starting point for the Apache effort is the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta. That is the code they are starting with. The Apache 3.4 release will complete that beta and will bring many new features to OpenOffice.org 3.3 users.

The Apache project let themselves be manipulated, they're just whining about the result

Posted Dec 27, 2011 19:47 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

Apache let themselves be manipulated by Oracle. LibreOffice was a healthier project than any Open Source version of OpenOffice ever was, but it was a fork unauthorized by the original corporate sources of the software, and Oracle couldn't bring themselves to work with them. This is the payoff for Oracle's mistake.

But then it often seems that Apache's raison d'etre is to provide a safe playground for corporations. They can get IBM and its ilk to help them with the project, and shouldn't complain if motivated individuals work elsewhere.

The Apache project let themselves be manipulated, they're just whining about the result

Posted Dec 27, 2011 23:25 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I think, based on events, that we can recognize that there are and have been two very different communities developing OO and often at loggerheads with one another for many years, it may just be more evident now that the project really has split into two different communities. I don't know whether those communities are really going to be successful together or would be better apart.

The Apache project let themselves be manipulated, they're just whining about the result

Posted Dec 28, 2011 23:31 UTC (Wed) by rcweir (guest, #48888) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't see anyone at Apache complaining that "motivated individuals work elsewhere." The concern is that if the work is not done at Apache and not released by Apache then it should not bear a name that users will confuse with the trademark that Apache owns, especially when used in conjunction with a fund-raising effort.

By analogy, it is fine if a group wants to raise money for disaster relief. I think we would all agree that this is a wonderful thing to do. However, if the groups names itself "Team Red Cross" and uses the Red Cross emblem in their fund-raising efforts, but has no official relationship with the Red Cross, then this is a problem.

Re: Red Crosses

Posted Jan 5, 2012 19:15 UTC (Thu) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

The problem here seems to be that since last year, disaster relief has generally been effected by people who use the Blue Moon logo, as the people who owned the Red Cross label demonstrated that they weren't interested.

Or something like that, anyway.