Announcements from the LibreOffice conference

[Posted October 14, 2011 by jake]

From:		Italo Vignoli <italo.vignoli-AT-documentfoundation.org>
To:		lwn-AT-lwn.net
Subject:		[PR] LibreOffice Conference Announcements
Date:		Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:54:01 +0200
Message-ID:		<9tdXTRRDULTzyxL304Dykj2bdhmssNAwgNEGt18grAeg@documentfoundation.org>

During the LibreOffice Conference, The Document Foundation has announced:

* LibreOffice Online Prototype: you can watch a demo video at the following address:
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/data/2011-10-10-lool-dem.... LibreOffice Online is based on
GTK+ framework and HTML5's canvas, and has been developed by SUSE's Michael Meeks, built on Gtk+
broadway from RedHat's Alex Laarson.

* LibreOffice port project to Android and iOS, based on the voluntary work of Tor Lillqvist, a SUSE
finnish developer know for having ported GIMP to Windows. The LibreOffice Android and iOS port has
the objective of bringing the office suite to iPads and Android tablets, and eventually smaller
devices. The user interface work has yet to start in earnest but the bulk of the code is
compiling.

Please note that these are not products available to end users, but advanced development projects
which will become products sometimes in late 2012 or early 2013.

* 500.000 desktops, mostly Windows, at several French Government entities switching from OpenOffice
to LibreOffice (this increases the Windows installed base of LibreOffice by 5% in a single move)

* 800.000 USB keys with LibreOffice and other free software distributed to students of the Paris
Region (Île-de-France)

* Region Île-de-France becoming a member of TDF Advisory Board

We are available by email to provide more details about the announcements, and as soon as we will
be back from the conference we will be distribute a couple of press releases with additional
details and comments.

About The Document Foundation (TDF)

The Document Foundation is an open, independent, self-governing, meritocratic organization, which
builds on ten years of dedicated work by the OpenOffice.org Community. TDF was created in the
belief that the culture born of an independent foundation brings out the best in corporate and
volunteer contributors, and will deliver the best free office suite. TDF is open to any individual
who agrees with its core values and contributes to its activities, and warmly welcomes corporate
participation, e.g. by sponsoring individuals to work as equals alongside other contributors in the
community. As of September 30, 2011, TDF has 136 members and over a thousand volunteers and
contributors worldwide.

Media Contacts

Florian Effenberger (based near Munich, Germany, UTC+1)
	Phone: +49 8341 99660880 - Mobile: +49 151 14424108
	E-mail: floeff@documentfoundation.org - Skype: floeff
Olivier Hallot (based in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, UTC-3)
	Mobile: +55 21 88228812 - E-mail: olivier.hallot@documentfoundation.org
Charles H. Schulz (based in Paris, France, UTC+1)
	Mobile: +33 6 98655424 - E-mail: charles.schulz@documentfoundation.org
Italo Vignoli (based in Milan, Italy, UTC+1)
	SIP Phone: +39 02 320621813 - Mobile: +39 348 5653829
	E-mail: italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org - Skype: italovignoli
	GTalk: italo.vignoli@gmail.com

--

Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
mob +39 348 5653829 - skype italovignoli
italo.vignoli@documentfoundation.org

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 16, 2011 9:09 UTC (Sun) by ingwa (guest, #71149) [Link] (21 responses)

These are some nice events that brings many many new users to LibreOffice. But I don't think that that the mobile versions belong here, that is just vaporware.

If you read closely you will find out that it's an announcement of an *intention* to bring LibreOffice to Android and IOS. We also find out that "the bulk of the code" compiles, which is not exactly a great

It also says that "The user interface work has yet to start in earnest" and here is the real issue. The work to create a new user interface is humonguous, and much of it is because the user interface is intertwined so hard with the underlying layers. There is not much of a separation between the engine and the UI in LibreOffice.

If you want to have a free mobile office application you should probably look closer at the Calligra Suite (http://www.calligra-suite.org/). They already have two different mobile interfaces maintained by the community, one of them created by Nokia. The office document viewer in the Nokia N9 and N950 smartphones build on the Calligra engine but with a user interface developed by Nokia itself.

Regarding IOS, I'm not sure it's even possible. Apple has never allowed any GPL'ed software on the iPhones and most of LibreOffice is still (L?)GPL since the fork from OpenOffice.org.

Full disclosure: I am involved with the Calligra Suite.

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 16, 2011 9:18 UTC (Sun) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (2 responses)

I have absolutely nothing to do with the Calligra suite, but my first reaction was the same: Somehow the OpenOffice code base and "small devices", never mind touch screens of any size, don't immediately give me a lot of confidence in seeing something that work. Even getting Gecko to mobile devices hasn't exactly been easy, my understanding is LO is in for an even bigger challenge.

But of course, if it can be done, that will probably result in a much healthier LO codebase for everyone, so the effort itself should certainly be supported.

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 16, 2011 16:25 UTC (Sun) by lmb (subscriber, #39048) [Link]

Size concerns evaporate - by the time LibreOffice is in a reasonable shape on mobile devices, mobile devices will have the compute and memory capacity to run it ;-)

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 20, 2011 5:53 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link]

Hey, it works just fine! http://people.debian.org/~timo/NeoFreeRunner/freerunner_r...

;)

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 16, 2011 11:05 UTC (Sun) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]

I think describing it as "vapourware" is a bit unfortunate. If you look at the git repo, there has already been a fair amount of work on the Android/iOS beyond booting up a dev system and seeing what 'make' does.

Getting the majority of the code to compile is a pretty decent achievement. It's been a shame seeing people from competing projects (thinking mainly Apache OOo, not yourself) cast FUD on what they're doing.

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 16, 2011 18:17 UTC (Sun) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link] (16 responses)

That's rubbish, there is plenty of GPL stuff available for iOS if you look at the AppStore and Apple does not have an anti-GPL policy (it's not there in the terms and conditions). The iOS basesystem is free of any GPL code as far as I know.

You might be confused by either Microsoft who have or had a "no GPLv3" policy for Windows Phone and by some events from a year or so ago: there were some people (notably FSF) who did not want GPL software running on iOS and were making a big stink about it, so Apple decided to pull their software from the iPhone.

It's there, you just need to look

Posted Oct 16, 2011 18:47 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (5 responses)

That's rubbish, there is plenty of GPL stuff available for iOS if you look at the AppStore and Apple does not have an anti-GPL policy (it's not there in the terms and conditions).

Actually terms and conditions exlicitly forbid GPL: they mandate linking with binary DRM blob even if your app is free. This contradicts the GPL requirement procure "all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". And that means that all GPLed programs are placed in AppStore in violation of GPL - and from time to time they are pulled from there. It's funny how infamous porno-fighters miss simple license violations routinely.

But the simple truth here is that only GPL is in trouble with AppStore. LGPL quite explicitly gives you the right to combine LGPLed work with works under other licenses (including aforementioned DRM blob) and then to "distribute that work under terms of your choice".

Actually it's not clear if LGPL is Ok here too, because these terms should "permit modification of the work for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications" - and AppStore does not give you right to change apps even on your own phone, but usually the fact that you can sign sale of your soul^W^W^W^W development agreement and then use LGPLed component is deemed enough for LGPL requirements.

It's there, you just need to look

Posted Oct 16, 2011 19:25 UTC (Sun) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link] (1 responses)

Why would Apple want to find license violations? It would mean actively checking binaries for possible license violations, even though you don't know anything about the sources which were made to build the binaries (and which could have been obtained under a different license from the copyright holder). That means making a whole lot of assumptions. Also, if a program slips through and has been "apple approved" it could open up a whole can of worms, like accepting responsibility. Making the person uploading binaries to the app store makes a lot more sense because you can easily put the blame somewhere else.

The iPhone developer agreement (thank you EFF for publishing that) has a clause (3.3.16) that might indicate that GPL software can be an issue (depending on the linking of course), so I stand corrected there.

However (hypothetically speaking), if I, as a sole copyright holder of my own software would decide to upload stuff to the Apple app store, under the GPL, who can sue Apple? Just the copyright holder.

And in most cases, the copyright holder will simply not care.

It's there, you just need to look

Posted Oct 16, 2011 20:12 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Making the person uploading binaries to the app store makes a lot more sense because you can easily put the blame somewhere else.

Right. But Apple offers infamous "freedom from porn", "freedom from programs that steal your private data" and other dubious "freedoms". Why "freedom from illegal software" is not among them?

However (hypothetically speaking), if I, as a sole copyright holder of my own software would decide to upload stuff to the Apple app store, under the GPL, who can sue Apple? Just the copyright holder.

And in most cases, the copyright holder will simply not care.

This is an Ok approach for Android Market (where Google only reacts when people complain) but Apple likes to say that they are doing better. Not in this case. They can always say something like "possible GPL violations are found, can you certify that you indeed own the copyrights for code in question" - but AFAIK they are not doing that and happily sell GPLed code till notified.

It's there, you just need to look

Posted Oct 16, 2011 21:42 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (2 responses)

Actually terms and conditions exlicitly forbid GPL: they mandate linking with binary DRM blob even if your app is free. This contradicts the GPL requirement procure "all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable".

Wouldn't the system library exception in section 3 of the GPL (v2) apply to this? (IANAL.)

It's there, you just need to look

Posted Oct 17, 2011 8:15 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (1 responses)

"More about the App Store GPL Enforcement", with regard to the removal of GNU Go from the App Store, states the FSF's position.

It's there, you just need to look

Posted Oct 17, 2011 12:35 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Yes, but that is nothing to do with the »DRM blob« that one ostensibly needs to link to one's programs (I'm not an iOS developer so wouldn't know), and to which the »system library« exception in the GPL ought to apply. If it is technically necessary to link to the DRM blob and the DRM blob comes with the OS, even without source code under the GPL, then that in itself is not a problem as far as the GPL is concerned (we used to have to link our programs to the vendor libc etc. on proprietary Unixen, which amounts to the same thing).

The FSF's objection in the cited document is that Apple tries to impose further restrictions their App Store terms/conditions etc. on stuff one gets from the App Store, which according to the GPL is not allowed no matter what the restrictions specifically say.

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 17, 2011 2:54 UTC (Mon) by dbruce (guest, #57948) [Link] (9 responses)

I maintain tuxmath and have considered the possibility of an iOS release. We also just moved from GPLv2+ to GPLv3+.

Under GPLv2, it is more or less possible for the developer to comply by posting the source code at his own site, although it does not seem to me that this quite meets the requirements of the GPL for source to be available from the same place as any binaries. If the developer is the sole copyright holder, then no one else has standing to accuse Apple of GPL violation if Apple doesn't provide source. AFAIK, this also doesn't fit Apple's developer agreement requiring that the iOS version of the app not be distributed through other channels, (but I'm not an iOS dev and have never seen the actual agreement).

So, I think it is possible to have GPLv2 apps in the App Store as long as the developer follows a sort of "don't ask, don't tell policy", but I don't think a strict reading of the GPL would allow this.

As for GPLv3, the clauses regarding DRM keys and signatures are clearly incompatible with Apple's policies for iOS devices. Now that we are a GPLv3+ program, I think the point is moot for us.

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 17, 2011 12:05 UTC (Mon) by gidoca (subscriber, #62438) [Link] (7 responses)

Is there really a requirement to make the source available from the same place as a binary? I thought it was enough to include an offer to provide the source on request.

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 17, 2011 13:20 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (6 responses)

You're right in that the relevant text is talking about 3a distribution

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

But doing 3b distribution (the "written offer") can be prohibitively expensive, because the offer is valid for several years for each specific version of the source code. It may also run foul of Apple rules. Offering to distribute the same software NOT via Apple's store could be seen as trying to do an end run around the royalties scheme (even though it isn't) much like eBay can throw you off the system if you advertise a phone number where customers can buy the same goods cheaper (and not pay eBay's fee)...

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 17, 2011 17:49 UTC (Mon) by krake (guest, #55996) [Link] (1 responses)

Then how about embedding the source in compressed form inside the app and provide functionality to extract to from within the app?

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 18, 2011 1:16 UTC (Tue) by grg (guest, #76756) [Link]

That sounds a lot like a quine.

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 18, 2011 0:44 UTC (Tue) by cowsandmilk (guest, #55475) [Link] (3 responses)

But doing 3b distribution (the "written offer") can be prohibitively expensive

Does it have to be? If my written offer points to the github tag that corresponds to a release, is this sufficient? The user can then click the link to download the source that corresponds to the binary they are running. And they can also see the newer versions and my active development.

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 18, 2011 11:04 UTC (Tue) by jku (subscriber, #42379) [Link] (2 responses)

At least the SFLC thinks a network service is not acceptable for options 3a or 3b. To me it seems more likely every year that a network service would actually be a "media customarily used for software interchange"...

As sidenote GPLv3 is explicit here: Physical media is required.

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 19, 2011 12:30 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] (1 responses)

As sidenote GPLv3 is explicit here: Physical media is required.

Even if you didn't distribute the binaries that way?

ITS distribution

Posted Oct 19, 2011 22:29 UTC (Wed) by jrn (subscriber, #64214) [Link]

In section 6c, yes.

Many nice things, but I don't believe in the mobile version

Posted Oct 17, 2011 15:47 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link]

iOS development terms that you sign to get an app on the store state very clearly that you can't post your source code publicly anywhere. Its this prohibition and the other terms that blatently prevent the GPL. At least MS was honest about it and just said explicitly that no GPL3 code is allowed, Apple did the dishonest thing IMO and simply added requirements that made GPL software impossible to put on the store. And I personally believe they did this deliberately in that they didn't want free GPL software competing with their paid ecosystem.