Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||||||||
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator
The Apache Software Foundation today announced that Apache OpenOffice has graduated from the Apache Incubator to become a Top-Level Project, signifying that the Project's community and products have been well-governed under the ASF's meritocratic process and principles. In the near future there will be some changes to the website and mailing lists, as we move out of the Incubator. Details of changes will be posted on our wiki at http://s.apache.org/openoffice-graduation-changes But aside from these small administrative and infrastructure changes, work on the next release of Apache OpenOffice continues. More details in the blog post here: https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/openoffice_graduates_f... Regards, Andrea. ============================================= Note: you received this email because you are subscribed to the OpenOffice announcement mailing list. More information on this list, including information on unsubscribing, can be found here: http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.h... (Log in to post comments)
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 17:05 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Yawn. Is any big distro still using oo.o instead of LibreOffice, or is this the new Xfree86?
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 17:17 UTC (Thu) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link]
The distro called "users of Windows?"
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 17:24 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
I'm using LibreOffice on Mac and Windows.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 20:52 UTC (Thu) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
I have seen even among tech-savvy who installed OpenOffice on Windows, even when OpenOffice was dead! Maybe the name is easier to remember or more pleasing.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 22:43 UTC (Thu) by simosx (subscriber, #24338) [Link]
It's called "inertia".
Lost the .org Posted Oct 18, 2012 17:41 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Great that they managed to rename it from the cumbersome 'OpenOffice.org' to just OpenOffice.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 18, 2012 22:46 UTC (Thu) by simosx (subscriber, #24338) [Link]
They renamed it to "Apache OpenOffice".
Now, there is no plain "OpenOffice" or "OpenOffice.org".
Lost the .org Posted Oct 19, 2012 13:21 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Right, the official name is Apache OpenOffice, but nobody is going to call it that any more than they refer to Apache Subversion. Check the headline to this very LWN article.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 1:37 UTC (Sat) by am (guest, #69042) [Link]
Did anyone ever actually call it "OpenOffice.org"?
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 12:34 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Hardly, according to Google Trends. (Stupid link will not work on Firefox, but OpenOffice.org popularity is about 10% that for OpenOffice.) It is a wonder that anyone would add a suffix trendy like 10 years ago and keep it for so long.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 18:53 UTC (Sat) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]
"Trendy" never had anything to do with it at all. "Avoiding legal problems in the Netherlands (and neighboring nations where NL trademarks are valid)" did. "Apache OpenOffice" is different enough from the Dutch company "Open Office" that they figured they wouldn't have any trouble.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 20:25 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I guess that "Sun OpenOffice" would have also been sufficient, then. Perhaps there was a legal background to not using the bare "OpenOffice", but the specific suffix must have been chosen for commercial reasons. Perhaps "trendy" was a bit too generous though.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 21:23 UTC (Sat) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]
On the other hand, maybe "Sun OpenOffice" wouldn't have worked in 2000. There may well have been other reasons why the Dutch computer services company presented a credible litigation threat in 2000 but not in 2012.
For instance, gradual dilution of their already-rather-generic trademark, changes in Dutch IP law or new precedents, or contact/negotiations/discussions between the parties in the past dozen years we don't know about.
Also, a still-relatively-financially-strong Sun starting a new project may have been an attractive litigation target in 2000, while targeting a nonprofit for a 12-year-old issue is likely to bring a company nothing but bad will.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 28, 2012 20:41 UTC (Sun) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
Remember that Sun was trying to get outside help for the development of the basic parts of their Sun StarOffice product, and I'm not so sure IBM, Novell, e.a. would have been too happy to work on a project named *Sun* OpenOffice...
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 21:31 UTC (Sat) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]
The suffix was probably just chosen because they were already using openoffice.org as their website and they figured including the suffix would be easy to remember and not force too huge of a branding change.
I guess you can call that "commercial reasons" if you like, but your portrayal of Sun as trying to jump on some dotcom bubble hype phrase for its fashion appeal and then leaving it there through ignorance that it had fallen out of fashion is really wildly inaccurate.
Only the lawyers etc involved really know why Sun took that route then and why Apache Legal Affairs cleared the more direct name now.
Lost the .org Posted Oct 20, 2012 22:17 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I am really puzzled that they chose a bad, unwieldy name and stuck to it for so many years. Perhaps they wanted to bank on the community aspect by highlighting the ".org" suffix. Remember that at the time many companies were trying to harness the power of the community by launching ".org" initiatives.I don't really know, but you are offering nothing but conjecture either. Anything better than a "was probably just chosen" would be interesting!
Lost the .org Posted Oct 22, 2012 18:15 UTC (Mon) by khc (subscriber, #45209) [Link]
Link works fine in firefox 17 for me (currently in beta)
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 19:17 UTC (Thu) by tcourbon (subscriber, #60669) [Link]
Even the French administration did find enough time since the last OOo to move to LibreOffice. And if there is a thing an administration of this size is not known for, it would be the lack of change dynamism.
So, the only comment I feel is appropriate here is : "OMG it's still moving ! Zombie OpenOffice is walking the world !"...
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 14:20 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
hehe. ZombieOffice.
That would be awesome
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 20, 2012 12:38 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Code cannot even be shared from LibreOffice to Apache OpenOffice. Can it go the other way? I think so, but have never seen an authoritative answer.
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 20, 2012 23:23 UTC (Sat) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
Yes, but no.
I doubt The Document Foundation will want to release a mixed-license tree (not dual-licensed, but some parts with a license and other parts with another one)...
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 21, 2012 0:35 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
That's actually pretty common, as long as the licenses of all the individual parts are compatible.
They can then either list the project as being under the license that covers everything, or they can say that it's under one license, and then list the exceptions.
The linux kernel is under GPLv2, except for parts that are under BSD....
you do have to be careful that the licenses are compatible, or you find yourself in the situation busybox got themselves into, they had most of the tree GPLv2+, but a few parts were GPLv2 only. They opted to acknowledge this by changing the license of the overall project to GPLv2 only
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 23, 2012 14:11 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
The two primary licences for LibreOffice are LGPL3 and MPL2.
There's a major refactoring going on, I believe, to replace the Oracle code base with the Apache code base. Sounds a bit daft I know, as the code is identical, but it enables the Oracle code to be relicenced from Oracle's LGPL-only licence to LO's MPL/LGPL. When that's done, LO will be consistently licenced LGPL/MPL right through.
Cheers,
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 23, 2012 19:58 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] That is what I was wondering: does the LibreOffice project relicense the code to MPL/LGPL? Do they need to ask for consent, or does the Apache Software License allow for such relicensing to happen automatically?The other possibility is in line with what others have commented: release under the LGPL, but keep some parts under the ASL.
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 24, 2012 14:50 UTC (Wed) by thumperward (guest, #34368) [Link]
MPL2 is compatible with the ASL. A detailed (and, I should say, easily Googleable) explanation of exactly what is happening and exactly what it means for LibreOffice's licensing is available here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Re-Basing
If you've "never seen an authoritative answer" as regards how interoperable the Apache license is, by the way, it rather raises the question of how exactly you believed copylefted projects were able to make use of Apache code for all these years.
Embrace and extend Posted Oct 24, 2012 15:09 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] My ignorance is ample enough to encompass all kinds of license combinations, I can assure you. I knew that code under the Apache License version 1 (formerly known as the Apache Software License, ALv1 for short) could be relicensed to GPLv2, I knew that GPLv3 was compatible (by design) with ALv2, I did not know if you can just change the headers from ALv2 to GPLv3 and be done with it.After reading the linked wiki (thanks for that), it appears that they will acknowledge code from the ASF and under the ALv2, and relicense the code at the same time under the MPLv2. Nice and clean.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 18, 2012 20:04 UTC (Thu) by jond (subscriber, #37669) [Link]
I guess it's a bit of a shame, had it not, perhaps it would have quietly died.
IBM/OpenOffice not participating in ODF-plugfest? Posted Oct 19, 2012 11:36 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
One worrying thing is that it actually might quietly die anyway but users won't immediately notice because the download/update site still exists. It seems IBM/Apache isn't even interested in participating in the ODF plugfest anymore, which is a pity since ODF compatibility is very important.
http://www.italovignoli.org/2012/10/where-are-the-ibmmers/
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 2:57 UTC (Fri) by gomadtroll (guest, #11239) [Link]
Congratulations.
I have 10 years of documents archived plus templates. Perfect fidelity with AOO. Something the Libreoffice/TDF folks do not seem to think is a priority. Could be, but it is good to have a choice.
Thank You AOO.
Greg
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 8:31 UTC (Fri) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
What are the fidelity issues you're experiencing with LibreOffice? Links to bug reports would be appreciated. Otherwise this sounds like a bit like FUD.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 8:50 UTC (Fri) by robert_s (subscriber, #42402) [Link]
It's worth noting that his username ends in "troll".
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 22, 2012 5:58 UTC (Mon) by gomadtroll (guest, #11239) [Link]
I am a Debian user, for quite some time. This is NOT a poke at Debian, Rene does a first rate job of packaging upstream. It has been x number of years though since Debian packaged vanilla OO, Debian used G0 -Office 'fork' , as did a few other Linux distro's. I used what Debian released.
My templates would break , Tables in Writer, periodically. I thought it was something I did, until the release of LO 3.4, which totally broke backwards compatibility for my use. I had to find a solution quickly, business, deadlines etc. I started using dev builds of AOO.
I loved having Debian manage my software stack. I have now found I have to be more selective. I use AOO,debs from their web site-no repos, and also Trinity desktop (kdepim), which I have to test and manage separately.
Not sure the animosity towards anyone supporting AOO. FOSS and choice come to mind.
Greg Madden
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 22, 2012 13:08 UTC (Mon) by mmeeks (subscriber, #56090) [Link]
> ps: google: gomadtroll apache openofice, table borders, read/search the
> LO and AOO listserves
You end up with this link to your page:
Which appears to have three bugs linked to it, the first two fixed. As a comparison of LibreOffice vs. AOO there are more complete instances, I tried to create something more comprehensive:
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2012-04-26-ooo-comp...
But that picture is now even further skewed by LibreOffice 3.6 which introduced a further slew of new features, and I havn't had time to update it sadly.
Anyhow - sorry you had issues; as with any developing software, sometimes there are regressions - if you're a conservative user it's best to choose the X.Y.5 release or higher, otherwise please do get stuck in and help with QA - the earlier bugs are filed, the quicker and more easily they get fixed.
All the best.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 9:11 UTC (Fri) by bugmenot (guest, #32475) [Link]
+1
Better to have the original OOo project being continued by Apache than to have the fork. Linux distributors wanted to have a project to have more control over OOo so they started go-oo.org which is nowerdays renamed to LibreOffice.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 20, 2012 9:07 UTC (Sat) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
> I have 10 years of documents archived plus templates. Perfect
> fidelity with AOO. Something the Libreoffice/TDF folks do not > seem to think is a priority. Could be, but it is good to have > a choice.
Funnily enough "infidelity" is exactly what I've experienced with OpenOffice over the last 12 years or so. I've only updated OO through distribution upgrades, every year or so, but every year, when giving my lecture, presentation layout would be broken because OOo had decided that it wanted to wrap some lines at a different place than the year before.
The first few years I was annoyed, but I got over it and now I'm just taking it as a given that I need to fix my presentation every year.
The problem might be due to the fonts and text rendering infrastructure in Linux being in flux.
Preemptive argument: I've yet to find out how I can do unnumbered list entries in Presentation that correctly indent all but the first line in a "paragraph" without defining my own formats.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 10:20 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
Congratulations to the AOO folks!
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 19, 2012 23:36 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
I guess this makes OpenOffice officially dead, not just de-facto dead. Apache should have announced that from this day forward, no new bugs will be introduced into OpenOffice. All the bugs it has now are all the bugs it will ever have. No features will be eliminated, gratuitously or otherwise. Spreadsheets will produce exactly the same results, documents will print with exactly the same pagination, a file saved today will load in ten years or a hundred. It can be burned into ROM on any device, with no update procedure defined.
Seriously, I know people who were happy when Lucid went bust because that stabilized its compilers. People knew how to work around the known bugs, but never knew what the next release might bring.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 23, 2012 13:13 UTC (Tue) by aristedes (guest, #35729) [Link]
What a lot of mean spirited people you lot are. A whole bunch of developers spend their time on producing an open source unencumbered release and unpleasant sniping and criticism is all you can manage.
How is it decreasing from your freedom or choice to have another fork of a popular office suite? Perhaps they will come up with some nice new features in the future now that the legal issues are resolved. Perhaps they will not. But it is almost as though you all want them to fail. How is that helpful?
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 23, 2012 13:40 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> But it is almost as though you all want them to fail. How is that helpful?
More like people think that AOO has _already_ failed. It's dead on arrival. Too little, too late.
How is that helpful? because it reduces unneeded fragmentation. What is to be won from maintaining two almost identical code bases? It's just doubling the amount work for little or no gain. LibreOffice has the momentum, OpenOffice is just a shell of a project. The sooner people get to contribute to the viable one, the less effort that will be _wasted_.
Compare that with supporting completely different projects (like Calligra, or Gnumeric/Abiword). That also adds fragmentation, but in return you get code bases with completely different lineages. That would be a good thing in the event of patent or other IP disputes.
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Oct 26, 2012 0:32 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
I was not sniping. I said "seriously", and meant it. OOo is now an archival format, a very useful thing. Strictly speaking you need to archive the fonts, too, I suppose. What else?
OpenOffice graduates from the Apache Incubator Posted Nov 2, 2012 21:29 UTC (Fri) by Zizzle (guest, #67739) [Link]
Because the whole AOO episode was a f-you to the already existing and vibrant LibreOffice project and community.
I do want them to fail. I want LibreOffice to be the only OOo offshoot.
Why have the duplication in effort over a license difference that is to allow a large corporation to plunder the code for their closed source efforts?
LibreOffice's weak copyleft license (and truth be told the debacle of AOO and the coroprate shilling that occurred) inspired me to contribute to LO.
So I guess at least once good thing has come out of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||