Hello ... --- On Tue, 7/5/11, Drini Nosi <[email protected]> wrote: ... > As I read this thread, it makes me a > bit sad to see that the community of the OpenSourceOffice is > actually splitting in two, and I don't understand why. >
Corporate interests. Some linux distributions and developers were not happy with the copyright owner and started a fork. Please note that Apache didn't fork, and didn't split any community, we were just offered the chance to do something new and absolutely cool. > I am not a developer, just a user, so I don't understand > the technicalities. I can understand the differences between > the licenses and their meaning to the developers, but > wouldn't it been better to have ONE open project? If > LibreOffice would have not started, then Apache > OpenOffice.org would have not happened. > That's very speculative. Apache OpenOffice is not happening due to LibreOffice, it's an entirely independent project with different objectives; one of them providing a truly open alternative to copyleft alternatives. > TDF promisses an open and friendly environment to > contribute. I don't (HONESTLY) understand why the developers > don't want to contribute to LibreOffice, but want to spilt > the project in two? (Speaking in user terms). > No one is splitting anything. I personally prefer not to contribute anything different than bug reports to copyleft projects, so for me Apache OO is a good opportunity to actually contribute to something, otherwise I would choose not to contribute at all. > From one side, the concurrence can be good because it makes > the participants of the two projects strive to make > something better then the other, but at the end this is a > voluntary BIG project (LibreOffice + Apache > OpenOffice.org). > > Why not be ONE project? > Ask calligra, koffice, abiword, etc ... or the many linux distributions (Remember United Linux?). I have no answer for that, other than perhaps users value diversity. cheers, Pedro.
