Am .05.2017, 19:15 Uhr, schrieb Hagar Delest <delest.ha...@gmail.com>:
Le 20/05/2017 à 18:07, Raphael Bircher a écrit :
But companies don't com just to put money in, they want something back
(normally). SUN and IBM was a big exception. The point is, we are not
attractive for Companies at the moment. There is no room to make money.
We should start getting attractive for companies.
The only one I would see is Canonical. But i still don't understand why
they chose LibO.
What other company would invest money in a MS Office competitor???
In addition to the investment in the development (meaning manpower cost
but also the time needed to get the equivalent features they already
have in MS Office), there would also be the training of the users, the
migration of the existing tools and files (especially macros) and the
problem of the format interoperability with the people this company
deals with.
That's too much for companies to think about it IMHO. Or perhaps Google
but what for?
The main problem is, that we have no good reason to invest in OpenOffice.
Since years, we just run behind MS Office. But we never get beyond a good
copy of MS Office. License cost free is not a feature. The only benefit
OpenOffice offers, is that it runs on 3 Operating system with the same
code. this gives a base line in the program witch MS O lakes. We avoid a
load of compatibility issue with this.
Is there any company that invests substantially in LibO BTW (just a
question, I really don't know)?
When I see all the migrations (mostly to LibO because it's much more
dynamic and they are good at marketing their project), I just see bodies
(often administrations) who want to cut costs but without major
investment, they just take it because it serves their cause but I doubt
there is any will to go further for them (I mean dedicate manpower to
help the project).
That was a big mistake of the old OpenOffice Marketing. They promote
mostly the cost freeness. And they promote that you can save the License
expense. On the first look, this is true, but on the second view id didn't
work at all. With Open Source you save no license cost, because you need
the money to bring the project forward.
For my point of view, saving money is a bad reason to use Open Source.
I thought when OOo was given to Apache that the licensing would give
interest to the project for companies but it did not happen at all. Less
restrictive licensing attracts most of the devs. This is part of the
world evolution today I guess: people want more free sharing, or at
least want to avoid that their code can be used for commercial when they
give it for free.
The license only don't generate commercial interest. It needs an
interesting Project for company, and it looks, we are not at the moment.
At the moment, the OpenOffice Project don't give companies the opportunity
to make money.
This will probably change as sonn as
- there exist easy ways to do a 3rd party version
- there is a substantial interest of Users investing money.
--
My introduction https://youtu.be/Ln4vly5sxYU
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
