Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 17, 2012 13:24 UTC (Thu) by keithcu (guest, #58738)
In reply to: Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon by rcweir
Parent article: Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

I read your presentation. It was mostly about features in code that already existed. That is far from a justification for why you should invest in AOO. In fact, it is completely irrelevant to the topic.

At some point you will need to make an accounting for why you didn't join LibreOffice right from the start. When I add up all the pluses and minuses, it isn't even a close call, so I think it will be useful to document your thinking so that others can learn from it.

It is not absurd to think that you could have joined LibreOffice. It only still sounds absurd because you never gave it enough thought. Instead of helping LibreOffice, you are hurting it. You plan is as absurd as arguing you are going to fork the Linux kernel.

No one is suggesting we never have multiple versions of code. Just in this instance, with this 10M lines of code and given the fact that LibreOffice had just built everything you need and has a bigger and better team. You tend to justify your decisions in this situation by comparing it to other hypothetical situations. No one here is arguing for one GUI toolkit. You argue straw men rather than facts.

I wrote down a list of reasons why this Apache OpenOffice plan is a bad idea:
http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=2567

In general, there are a lot of naive people who don't understand what is going on, and so getting the facts out can help minimize the damage. IBM could have come up with a much better plan. Brains != common sense

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 17, 2012 22:41 UTC (Thu) by ingwa (guest, #71149) [Link] (3 responses)

I'm sorry to say this, but this is exactly what I was talking about in my original note.

IBM wants the Apache License, the LibreOffice people can only accept MPL/(L)GPL. Right there is enough reason for them not to join the LibreOffice project. And if I may add a personal reflection, I would also be reluctant to join a project whose members have done nothing but trash talking me.

Your comment reeks of a sense of entitlement. You try to tell IBM that you know their motivations better than they do. Your sentence "you never gave it enough thought" shows that clearly. And "Instead of helping LibreOffice, you are hurting it" is another gem. What makes you think they care about LibreOffice? There seems to be some collective idea that people are out to hurt the LO project. I have no proof in any direction but I sincerely doubt it.

What I really wonder is why you think you have the right to comment the way you do about the other project. Live and let live is a cliché, but actually a good way to lead your life. Especially since we are all part of the bigger ODF community. The hostility that is shown in this comment and other similar writings is hurting the community much more. Instead of infighting we should join our forces in the ODF world.

Finally, may I suggest that "the community" is not only comprised of the LO developers? I know several other communities and part of the former OOo community is now working on LO; part of it is working on AOO. The "we are the community and you need to work for us" sentiment needs to stop. It is arrogant and damages the real community.

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 0:02 UTC (Fri) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (1 responses)

"IBM wants the Apache License"

OK, but why? If IBM wanted the Apache licence so they could keep going with proprietary Symphony, that would make sense. It doesn't matter whether I like it or not, it does makes sense. There's a clear argument there for why it would be in IBM's interest, if not anyone else's, to take the hit of having two separate forks of basically the same codebase.

But they're not keeping proprietary Symphony, they've just freed the lot. So, once again - what's the need to insist on an Apache licensed project?

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 0:25 UTC (Fri) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]

> But they're not keeping proprietary Symphony, they've just freed the lot. So, once again - what's the need to insist on an Apache licensed project?

I think the answer at this point is perfectly clear. Rob's reluctance to even discuss the origins of the decision to go with Apache over other projects makes the intent even more explicit.

They release OOo under Apache so that proprietary forks can be made. Then they release Symphony under the Apache license so that proprietary forks of their proprietary application can be made. This is for one reason and one reason only.

Only a proprietary fork can contain a back door that can be used for spying on users. Who would want to read all Symphony ODT documents badly enough for super-secret meetings with IBM to start all these wheels a-turning?

I'll connect the dots for you:

Aliens. Want. To Read. Your. Email.

Lotus Symphony code for OpenOffice coming soon

Posted May 18, 2012 2:05 UTC (Fri) by keithcu (guest, #58738) [Link]

IBM's preference for the Apache license is a reason for the fork. Unfortunately, it is not a good reason. Bradley Kuhn has explained:
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/06/01/open-office.html

I don't claim to know IBM's motivations for why they didn't join LO right from the beginning. However, when Rob uses the phrase above "absurd" when talking about working together in other situations, it suggests that he at least sort of thinks that joining LibreOffice was instinctively a bad idea. Some good ideas sound absurd until they are thought through more. His choice of words and analogies suggests motivations and that things weren't thought through.

There is evidence that the OO fork is hurting LibreOffice. Not many people talk about it or think about it, but it is there. At the very least, I can say that this AOO project causes stress for the LO team. Does stress not hurt?

I agree we should be working together. However, forks and social engineering can prevent that from happening. Being nice is helpful, but creating situations that allow people to work together is also very important. This discussion is about the latter. The pleasantries were first exchanged many months ago.

I didn't suggest that AOO needs to work "for" LO. I want them to work "with" not "for". Having worked in Microsoft Office, and spent a lot of time in OO/LO I can say it will take a lot of you. Firefox and the Linux kernel are good enough for basically everyone. LO / OO are not yet, and it needs a lot of help, and to work effectively and efficiently.