An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
If Apache OpenOffice wants to still maintain its old 4.1 branch from 2014, sure, that’s important for legacy users. But the most responsible thing to do in 2020 is: help new users. Make them aware that there’s a much more modern, up-to-date, professionally supported suite, based on OpenOffice, with many extra features that people need."
Posted Oct 13, 2020 14:55 UTC (Tue)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link] (11 responses)
Jan 2017: Apache OpenOffice 4.2.0 is planned for this year - but without to name a specific time frame
Posted Oct 13, 2020 15:11 UTC (Tue)
by ledow (guest, #11753)
[Link] (10 responses)
They can act as custodian for the name, maybe, but actually pushing the software forward is far beyond anything they've demonstrated they can do with it thus far.
They need to call it a day. Or remerge LibreOffice back into the fold, rename it to OpenOffice again and at least START on a level footing again. There's nothing in the licensing that would prevent that, as far as I know.
And splitting development effort like that is damaging to everyone, and people are STILL using the old name to search for the software they want, and then are bitterly disappointed at the state of it when they get it. It actually hurts LibreOffice and The Document Foundation in that regard - people remember OpenOffice but it's not a patch on LibreOffice while techy people automatically convert "Open" to "Libre" in their head whenever it's mentioned.
Apache really need to do the decent thing, and either license the name somehow or pull in the stables of LibreOffice and push them as OpenOffice.
I'm pretty disappointed in the Apache Foundation, to be honest, with their handling of the whole thing. It's tearing a community in two, one half of which is far lesser, completely stagnated, was insecure for a long period of time because of lack of development, and yet receives the lion's-share of Google searches and brand-name recognition, while the other half are doing all the work, making an excellent product, and struggling for recognition and (thus) cash. If they were actually DOING anything with it, it wouldn't be so bad, even if it was a rival commercial product or similar.
But it appears nothing more than spite by this point, to cling onto the name but not want to put in any effort, recognise any outside effort, or pass the torch on.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 15:47 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (9 responses)
There is nothing stopping LibreOffice merging code *from* Apache OpenOffice. However, if AOO tried to do the reverse, they would have to relicense to GPL, which I believe violates ASF's policies.
> Apache really need to do the decent thing, and either license the name somehow or pull in the stables of LibreOffice and push them as OpenOffice.
My (possibly wrong) understanding is:
- Projects are independent, and can decide whether they are active or inactive, provided they still have enough of a community to actually make that decision.
(from http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html)
So nothing is going to change unless the AOO project agrees to it or dies of natural causes.
> But it appears nothing more than spite by this point, to cling onto the name but not want to put in any effort, recognise any outside effort, or pass the torch on.
Indeed, this is a travesty. I just don't see how the ASF is supposed to fix it without violating their own principles.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 16:30 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
They could disband the AOO PMC on the basis that the community has broken down if they can't find anyone to make a release, and start a new PMC for AOO on that basis; this would force the current "leaders" out, and ask the AOO community to provide a new set.
Basically, Apache does not have mechanisms to force a project to be inactive or active; it does have mechanisms to test whether or not a project has a viable community that will make things happen, and if AOO doesn't have a viable community, then it can be closed down.
The question mark is whether AOO actually does have a viable community that's just not coding much (which would keep it alive with the brand name), or whether it's now sufficiently non-viable as a community that Apache's processes for shutting down a project apply.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 17:56 UTC (Tue)
by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 13, 2020 19:09 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (2 responses)
- Establish an interventionist stance. I don't think I've seen this done very often. I imagine you would have difficulty maintaining a functional community.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 23:44 UTC (Tue)
by roc (subscriber, #30627)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 1:02 UTC (Wed)
by geofft (subscriber, #59789)
[Link]
Posted Oct 13, 2020 19:15 UTC (Tue)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link]
Posted Oct 13, 2020 19:17 UTC (Tue)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link]
Yes there is. Quite pragmatically there *is* no code to merge.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 11:49 UTC (Wed)
by tcabot (subscriber, #6656)
[Link]
> There are two expected mechanisms by which a project may enter the Attic. Either the managing Project Management Committee (PMC) decides it would like to move the project, or The Apache Software Foundation's board dissolves the PMC and chooses to move the project.
It's well past time for the ASF board to step in and end this farce.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 17:11 UTC (Wed)
by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
[Link]
If your principles prevent you from fixing a travesty you've also got a problem with your principles which needs fixing too.
"Our system of governance is badly designed" isn't an observation about an unchangeable fact of the universe, like "The laws of thermodynamics suck". Instead it's a mistake you made and can correct, so then if you won't correct it that's something for which you'd be rightly blamed.
I don't see any ASF board members whose platform is "The ASF is horribly broken, we're going to reform it so that projects aren't able to limp along causing harm for years at a time". So I think that's because there aren't any. Which means every person on that board is tacitly OK with the "travesty" you talked about.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 15:49 UTC (Tue)
by am (subscriber, #69042)
[Link] (32 responses)
> FTR: If @tdforg is serious about working together, then they could start by allowing @ApacheOO the same benefit which they constantly and consistently take advantage of: using contributions in one project that were originally destined to the other. Dual license commits!
> After all, it's not @ApacheOO who is constantly whining about working together, or to "do the right thing", while doing not one whit to actually make it happen. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
Posted Oct 13, 2020 17:16 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
Yes because @ApacheOO is entirely dysfunctional and does not have any active development to speak of. The licensing of LibreOffice will continue to have no impact for ApacheOO if there are no original contributions from the project. The continued failure of even a minimal level of competent handling of the project should be on the top failures for the Apache brand itself.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 18:17 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (7 responses)
That's rich. AOO switched licenses. LibreOffice kept developing under the license they had (the GPL), and said license specifically prohibits them from switching to a dual-license setup. To the best of my knowledge, TDF does not have a CLA and literally can't do this, even if they wanted to.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 19:47 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (6 responses)
Cheers.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 0:14 UTC (Wed)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 18:02 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Cheers,
Posted Oct 14, 2020 18:20 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
Is he Rob Weir re-incarnated? Sounds like it.
Cheers,
Posted Oct 26, 2020 12:41 UTC (Mon)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (1 responses)
(Those hundreds-of-comments-long flamewars starring RW stopped quite abruptly. I wonder what happened, IBM stopped paying for the show?)
Posted Oct 26, 2020 14:15 UTC (Mon)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
Posted Oct 19, 2020 4:16 UTC (Mon)
by WolfWings (subscriber, #56790)
[Link]
Jim claimed AOO and LO are "a different product for a different audience." so someone asked straight-up what's AOO's office that LO doesn't serve equally well?
50 literal replies later by multiple different folks that all turned out to be formerly (not actively/currently) involved with AOO and were constantly claiming the question was in bad faith:
They claim AOO is "more focused on legacy issues with users on proprietary platforms." https://twitter.com/sunstarsys/status/1316948843490148355
Comparing the supported lists, that means...
Because everything else? Windows 32-bit, 64-bit, MacOS 10.10 and up, Android 5.0 and up, iOS (no AOO support at all) is handled by LibreOffice.
Oh, also, they claim that they have 50k downloads/day still is reason for their existance.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 19:20 UTC (Tue)
by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Oct 13, 2020 20:13 UTC (Tue)
by t-v (guest, #112111)
[Link] (5 responses)
In the core repository, in 2019 they took 11 commits by Matthias Seidel (git log --author=eidel --since=2019-01-01 --oneline | wc -l) and before there are 18 additional ones from earlier.
The last one they took from these three was from June 2019, so maybe they (Caolán mostly) stopped looking through them because not enough were applicable or because of the objections to not being on equal footing with respect .
If you just take the commits from apache.org authors (clearly a potential undercount), you have 257 in 2014 and 50/12/12/16/13 for 2015-2019 and 0 in 2020.
Of course, there might be other relevant repositories, I would not know.
(Disclaimer: I'm a TDF member but I haven't been involved in anything to do with AOO or the open letter, and this not a TDF opinion and analysis.)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 8:13 UTC (Wed)
by dgm (subscriber, #49227)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 9:37 UTC (Wed)
by t-v (guest, #112111)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 12:25 UTC (Wed)
by cesarb (subscriber, #6266)
[Link] (1 responses)
The LibreOffice git repository has a branch (https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+log/refs/heads/aoo/trunk) which is a mirror of the AOO SVN repository. They used git notes (https://git-scm.com/docs/git-notes, https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+log/refs/notes/commits) to attach to each commit in that branch a note mentioning whether that commit had been cherry-picked or not, and either the target commit or the reason (most of the time, the reason was that LibreOffice already had an equivalent commit several years earlier, or that the commit affected AOO-only things like the old build system).
Posted Oct 14, 2020 16:57 UTC (Wed)
by t-v (guest, #112111)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 13:25 UTC (Wed)
by impasse (guest, #142518)
[Link]
As you can see from the notes, most of them were of no use to LO.
IIRC that branch frequently stopped tracking the new commits (I think it was connected to the Github mirror of Apache projects, since AOO uses SVN, but I'm not 100% sure) and had to be fixed manually.
Last year they apparently decided that it wasn't worth the time to review them and never bothered fixing it.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 14:05 UTC (Wed)
by moltonel (guest, #45207)
[Link]
It's not very exciting (looks like fairly basic maintenance work), but it can't be denied. It's nothing compared to the LO development pace, but it's probably enough to keep the code out of Apache's attic. The benefit to the community (and would-be LO cherry-pickers) is vanishingly small, but the AOO devs are free to use their time as they wish. If there wasn't the "little issue" of brand recognition, we'd all be happy to let AOO potter along.
Posted Oct 13, 2020 20:58 UTC (Tue)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
I'm not the tiniest bit sympathetic to this complaint. Apache OpenOffice chose their own license, and they picked one that lets anyone use the code without giving anything back. If they didn't want that, they should have chosen a different license. It's really odd how projects like AOO seem to complain so much more about their code being used by copyleft FOSS software than they ever do about it being used by proprietary software.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 1:01 UTC (Wed)
by Paf (subscriber, #91811)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 2:15 UTC (Wed)
by thumperward (guest, #34368)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 2:26 UTC (Wed)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 12:41 UTC (Wed)
by mikapfl (subscriber, #84646)
[Link] (10 responses)
Sure, the rest of the comment is also out-of-touch, but just ot drive the point home, there is also this completely unnecessary misogynistic remark.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 14:21 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 16:07 UTC (Wed)
by mikapfl (subscriber, #84646)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 16:22 UTC (Wed)
by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 16:25 UTC (Wed)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 18:07 UTC (Wed)
by mikapfl (subscriber, #84646)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 18:16 UTC (Wed)
by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 15, 2020 21:16 UTC (Thu)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 18:58 UTC (Wed)
by madscientist (subscriber, #16861)
[Link] (2 responses)
Certainly I would never argue that there wasn't PLENTY of misogyny in Shakespeare...!! I just don't see it here. Gertrude is simply making a well-known, and completely gender-neutral, observation on the human condition: that the more someone over-emphasizes something the more likely it is that they're not being completely forthcoming about that thing. The fact that the target of the comment is a woman doesn't automatically make it more than that.
To the original poster: I understand that non-native speakers or people not familiar with Hamlet might not get the reference, but in general if you see a statement in quotes like that it refers to a comment made by someone else, and if there's no attribution after it you can assume that it's pretty well-known (Shakespeare, Einstein, Roosevelt, etc. are good bets for quotes--as are Yogi Berra and xkcd!) A quick Google search will often be enough to be sure.
Anyway, I think we've gone far enough afield for this thread! Cheers!
Posted Oct 14, 2020 22:05 UTC (Wed)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (1 responses)
The overarching context is that Prince Hamlet thinks Gertrude is being unfaithful, because she remarried soon after King Hamlet's death. Her skepticism is meant to reflect that lack of fidelity. The line is Shakespeare subtly expressing agreement with Hamlet, by making it appear as though Gertrude is feeling some measure of guilt and is projecting that guilt onto the play-within-a-play. But Hamlet has no right to judge his mother's faithfulness in this way. It's an unreasonable standard which undermines her agency, and it arguably falls within what we would now describe as the "Madonna-whore dichotomy" (i.e. the idea that a woman can be virtuous or sexual, but not both).
Claudius was, of course, a murderer, but there's no explicit and overt evidence in the text that Gertrude was aware of this fact. Both Hamlets, at different points, suggest that she is sinful or evil in some fashion, but this is by no means proof of anything. Her remarriage may be read as a matter of political stability - consider how easily Fortinbras takes the crown at the end of the play - or simply as a case of people grieving in different ways. In this reading, she has done no wrong whatsoever.
Some critics have read Gertrude very differently from what I describe above, which is why I used the term "arguably."
Posted Oct 15, 2020 7:38 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Easier than some things, clearly, especially when you already have the army rolled out, and the target's spymaster has been punctured behind the arras. But compare to Claud taking it by a solitary murder.
Marrying immediately tends to suggest she was already carrying on with him before the event. But the tone-deaf remark tends to exonerate her from involvement in the murder itself.
Curiously, we have no legitimate reason to believe in the murder, ourselves, until we hear Claud own up, and Ham doesn't hear that. It is only after he comes back from the ship that he understands that whatever Claud did or didn't doesn't matter: one must kill the other, full stop.
This concludes our momentary digression to Shakespearean analysis, and we return to regularly scheduled programming. As it were.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 5:04 UTC (Wed)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 14:31 UTC (Wed)
by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 16:37 UTC (Wed)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (2 responses)
People in FOSS doing really destructive stuff out of egotism is uncommon, but unfortunately not unheard of. I can totally believe someone could do something like this out of spite or even licensing extremism without any kind of financial motive.
Posted Oct 15, 2020 10:43 UTC (Thu)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 28, 2020 16:18 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Certainly I can't think, off the top of my head, of any important project they run other than their namesake Apache web server ...
(And while that may be very important, it does seem somewhat hidden in the shadows to the majority of people)
Cheers,
Posted Oct 14, 2020 7:03 UTC (Wed)
by tdz (subscriber, #58733)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 14, 2020 19:29 UTC (Wed)
by ViRa-2020 (guest, #142531)
[Link] (7 responses)
* https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-soft...
WITHOUT allowing the possibility to comment, I also believe, that it would have been better to be silent until something sufficient / more important can be published!
Just my 2 cents ...
Posted Oct 14, 2020 20:38 UTC (Wed)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (3 responses)
> 12 releases have been made under the auspices of the ASF.
They are including point releases, as can be seen on https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Rele.... The 13th release, 4.2.0, is "planned" and they correctly didn't count it, but they incorrectly did count 3.5, which says it was "merged" into 4.0. Or maybe their numbers are right and their wiki is wrong, I have no way of knowing. Regardless, they have made twelve-ish releases, of whatever kind, over an eight year period. For comparison, here's LibreOffice's list of old releases: http://downloadarchive.documentfoundation.org/libreoffice...
And then there's this:
> "The need and, in fact, the demand, for a permissively licensed Open Source office suite, available to the masses and not just the privileged few fortunate enough to have the latest hardware and software, has never been greater within the last two decades," said Jim Jagielski, ASF co-Founder and Apache OpenOffice incubating mentor. "Apache OpenOffice exists to provide essential functionality, with as few licensing restrictions as possible, to the world at large. It is truly a noble mission, and I am honored to be a small part of it."
That statement is very carefully worded to exclude LibreOffice from consideration as a valid alternative. I can't imagine this was an accident.
Posted Oct 14, 2020 21:40 UTC (Wed)
by oever (guest, #987)
[Link] (2 responses)
Jagielski does not substantiate the claim that there is a great demand for a permissively licensed office suite.
Posted Oct 16, 2020 6:19 UTC (Fri)
by edomaur (subscriber, #14520)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 16, 2020 10:52 UTC (Fri)
by amacater (subscriber, #790)
[Link]
Posted Oct 14, 2020 23:58 UTC (Wed)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (2 responses)
It's not clear that's intended as a direct response to the LO letter. It is the 20th anniversary of OpenOffice being open sourced, so there's a reason for any project descended from it to blog about their project right now. The AOO post seems very mild if it's intended as a direct response to the LO letter.
That said, I find it striking that ASF talks about AOO as a top-level project. 12 releases in 8 years isn't exactly setting the world on fire in terms of development speed, especially since they've been waiting about 4 years now for 4.2 to come out. It doesn't say anything good about ASF that something moving at that pace is considered a top-level project.
Posted Oct 15, 2020 7:42 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link]
Posted Oct 16, 2020 6:59 UTC (Fri)
by gstein (guest, #3612)
[Link]
Posted Feb 7, 2021 18:02 UTC (Sun)
by sirinath (guest, #144668)
[Link] (3 responses)
As long as LibreOffice remain with the current licensing terms Apache OpenOffice will remain a more free viable alternative to LibreOffice for those who adhere to these values and philosophy.
Posted Feb 7, 2021 18:41 UTC (Sun)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
No, Apache OpenOffice won't be an alternative because it is not really getting any active development. License doesn't matter in this case.
Posted Feb 7, 2021 19:23 UTC (Sun)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
LO cannot reasonably do so, because it has neither monolithic copyright ownership nor a contributor licensing agreement.
Also, copyfree appears – based on the things it rejects – to be a movement for the freedom to be an exploiter, rather than the freedom to not be exploited.
> As long as LibreOffice remain with the current licensing terms Apache OpenOffice will remain a more free viable alternative to LibreOffice for those who adhere to these values and philosophy.
Unlike AOO (which is a zombie), LO has no shortage of contributors. It can live without this hypothetical body of additional contributors.
Posted Feb 13, 2021 0:33 UTC (Sat)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
July 2017: Apache OpenOffice 4.2.0 is also planned for this year - but without to name a specific time frame
Jan 2018: The next major release will be 4.2.0 with a target to publish in 2018.
July 2018: 4.2.0 is the next minor release, planned to be released into a beta phase within this year.
Feb 2019: 4.2.0 is the next minor release, planned to be released into a beta phase.
July 2019: 4.2.0 is the next minor release, planned to be released into a beta phase.
Jan 2020: 4.2.0 is the next minor release, planned to be released into a beta phase.
July 2020: 4.2.0 is the next minor release, planned to be released into a beta phase.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
- The ASF theoretically owns the name, but it would be a severe violation of norms for them to hand it over to a direct competitor to the project that's using that name.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Apparently their principles suck.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
- Establish a hands-off stance. This is (I think) what the ASF is doing, and was historically the behavior of the WMF.
- Be inconsistent, and annoy everyone (albeit at different times). This seems to be where the WMF is right now, and the community tends to have a rather poor relationship with them as a result.
- Be owned and operated by the community, so that the community and the org are (effectively) one and the same. Based on https://www.python.org/psf/membership/, I think the PSF works this way.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Wol
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Wol
(Who's on that list, but my contributions are so small they're probably not copyrightable)
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Wol
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Yes, exactly; his participation ended when IBM withdrew from the project in general.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
OS/2
Android 4.0 through 4.4 (roughly ~2% of all known android devices still operational; 5.0 and up is supported by LO)
MacOS prior to 10.10 (less than 1% of the market share of Apple devices)
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
These 11 are 3x pointer hotspot, 6x typo/grammar fix and two conversions of mouse pointer to RGB.
They also took a single commit from Jim Jagelski, apparently, and one from Damjan Novanovic.
I'm not sure whether authoring 14 patches of 15.000 makes it decent to even ask for licensing changes, even disregarding that TDF isn't the copyright owner, so they cannot change the license.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Caolán seems to have cherry-picked some fixes from AOO, but I don't know how he found them.
It appears to have stopped more than a year ago, but I would not want to speculate why.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/?h=aoo/...
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
I'm as skeptical of the complaints against "cancel culture" as anyone, but calling this a misogynistic remark is taking it too far in my opinion. That Hamlet quote is so famous that it has its own, separate wikipedia page, and it was used here completely in context.
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
Wol
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice
An open letter to Apache OpenOffice