Here's the deal.

OpenOffice.org is open source.  Having people do things you don't like is
the chance you take when you open the code and the binaries.
OpenOffice.orgPremium didn't even tough the code.

Someone out there could take the official code of the official release of
the official OpenOffice.org (TM) (R) (C) (SM) (P) - and add spyware /
ad-ware to it - and then distribute it as OpenOffice.org.  No premium.  No
"Plus".  No "pro".  No changing of anything, but the addition of the
spyware/adware.  As Ian said, that's the risk you take.  If you don't want
people messing with your "Official Product" the answer is simple - close the
source.  Change it from Free Software to freeware.  Sue anyone that changes
it or distributes it without your permission.

It's quite simple.  Do you know why there is no legal version of Microsoft
Office floating around the Internet that is anything other than what
Microsoft released?  It's because Microsoft doesn't let anybody touch their
code.  Now, there may be (and in fact, are) versions of MS Office out there
that are different from MS's official release, but they are illegal.
Anything that's not officially OpenOffice.org (TM) (R) (C) (SM) (P), oops, I
mean Microsoft Office (TM) (R) (C) (SM) (P) is illegal, if its in anyway
based on MS Office, calls itself MS Office, or in anyway pretends to be MS
Office.  They have control.  They locked it down.  They have closed the
source.

You seem to want that level on control.  You seem to want to be like them.
You seem to want to close the source.  Is that what you want?  Because it's
the ONLY way you can have that control.  It's the ONLY way you can make sure
that every distributor has the latest official release, with the latest
official bugfixes, with the latest official security updates, with the
latest official whatever.  And its the only way you can make sure that every
distributor has ONLY the latest official whatever.

OpenOffice.org is open source.  Stop complaining when someone uses the
rights we gave them when we (and by "we" I mean the official
OpenOffice.org(TM) (R) (C) (SM) (P) project) opened the source.  I
wasn't personally there
the day the vote was made to go LGPL.  Actually, none of us were, unless we
worked for Sun at the time.  When Sun chose to release OpenOffice.org (TM)
(R) (C) (SM) (P) into the wild as an open source LGPLed project -
OpenOffice.org Premium, NeoOffice, TheOpenCD, OpenOffice995, Luxuriousity
Office, Easy Office, Red Office, Linux Distro-specific versions of
OpenOffice.org, OpenOffice.org on eBay, OpenOffice.org for sale under a
different name at Walmart and Office Depot - all these were risks that Sun
took.  And they are risks we continue to take today by remaining open
source.  You don't like it?  Start your own closed-source office suite, have
complete control over it, begin global domination.

Loss of control is a problem for the open source movement.  I'm complained
about it myself.  It's one of the main reasons I doubt Linux will ever "take
over" the desktop market.  There's no central office.  There's no control.
There's no "official" anything.  Everyone and their brother can make a
distro (and most have, it seems).  One of the reason I think that Ubuntu is
taking off like it has, is because of control.  There's only one official
Ubuntu.  Other distros are based on it, (like Mepis), and there are a few
variants based on what desktop you want (Kubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.) or what
specific task you want it for (nUbuntu, Edubuntu) - but they are all just
slight variations of the official Ubuntu.  There may be 57 other
ubuntu-clones out there - but that's okay.  That's allowed.  I doubt
Canonical loses any sleep over it.  They just keep making a pretty good, "it
just works" Linux distro, and they keep getting more and more of the Linux
desktop distro market.

If you are all bent out of shape over someone using the "Official
OpenOffice.org Name!" then you need to go back and read the dozens of
threads of people bitching whenever someone who distribute
OpenOffice.orgunder a different name.  There's no winning apparently.

-Chad Smith
http://www.chadwsmith.com/

Reply via email to