On Sat, Nov 22, 2025 at 1:10 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am 22.11.2025 um 10:32 schrieb Marcus: > > Am 21.11.25 um 14:44 schrieb Peter Kovacs: > >> Haven't we decided to change the description for Apache OpenOffice. > >> > >> I found this old description here. Where is the new one? I would fix > >> it in the next days. > >> <https://www.openoffice.org/why/index.html> > > > > do you have a pointer where / when we have discussed this? > > Sadly not really. It was years ago. Maybe it was a discussion within the > pmc and never on dev as I do now. > > But maybe we can discuss again. The following statement seems a bit bold > for us. > > Apache OpenOffice is the leading *open-source* *office software > suite* for *word processing*, *spreadsheets*, *presentations*, * > graphics*, *databases* and more. > > Is this something we want to battle for? Or do we want to go with a > different statement, that reflects more what we are after? > > Leading reflects innovation, bleeding edge. We should think then on AI > support and other technologies. A lot of people do not feel home in our > UI, because we do not follow the closed source market leader. > If you check what low code systems do at the moment in terms of > databases we are not offering a tool at this point that is at the edge > of today's representation. > > I wonder if we should maybe change this to something that reflects more > what we are after. IMHO these are traits like: > - Preserving skill > > - offering a free Version for the public good, with low accessability > > - The ability to run on a broad support list not only market supported > machines. > > That sounds too negative!
We are also under a more permissive license than LO, allowing our code to be reused and extended by other parties, even commercially. We support several file formats better than other open-source office suites, eg. the MS Office 2003 XML formats which I've fixed many bugs in recently. We don't have community editions or bug users to donate.
