Re: future of OpenOffice
Quoted from the posting from Simon Phipps dated 12 Jan 2017: ... The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO. Ignoring the tricky wording, I should clarify that TDF has no power to "redo" any licensing. The attempt to re-license was evidently done by a non-lawyer and checking the git history you don't have to be a legal genius to notice it. I will go on and claim, without this being legal advice b/c IANAL, that the license situation of LO is unclear, rather risky and even very likely to be unenforceable. So no, it is simply impossible for an Apache project to take any significant code under such conditions. Even within the ASF, where we have clear methodologies to manage the IP consistently, the licensing was not completely clean until recently. This said, end users don't really care much about licensing as long as the code does what they need. The code in OpenOffice is not very nice to work with and, while I don't follow closely, I think they have been doing a tremendous effort to clean it up, they have passed their code through sanitizers and other practices that are really important before doing more mature work. I suspect I will need an Office suite for arm64 in the future so I may end up using it although not developing it. Just my $0.02, I don't care much about this thread. Pedro. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
-1 for ASF+TDF On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:43 PM, suhail ansari wrote: > Hi, > > My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. > > OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My > suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document > foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software > foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software > foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one > product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software > products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF > and the document foundation to work together. > > > Suhail Ansari > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
Thanks for these reminders. I was watching odftoolkit a few years ago. Wolf Halton Mobile/Text 678-687-6104 -- Sent from my iPhone. Creative word completion courtesy of Apple, Inc. > On Jan 13, 2017, at 23:05, Dave Fisher wrote: > > Hi - > > If support for Microsoft Office formats is desired and Java is not a problem > then Apache has a 15 year old project called Apache POI. Also, Apache > ODFToolkit is sitting in the Incubator for 5.5 years now with one developer - > Svante. > > Conversion between ODF and OOXML is the only way to ultimate document > freedom. Institutions cannot change - documents need to be write once and use > anywhere. > > There is a way if there is a will. > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: >> >> +1 :-D >> >> I will pick maybe some of the stuff up. >> >> >>> On 13.01.2017 21:38, Chuck Davis wrote: >>> Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :) >>> >>> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a >>> professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to >>> state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are >>> taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas. >>> >>> Thanks for being specific. >>> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki wrote: > > On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: > > but I fail to see it in my use cases. As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is overkill for more than 90% of the user base. As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would be more appropriate to use R & SQLite. > and start rolling out really useful features For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality, and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not currently present in AOo. For Base: Step One: Include SQLite; Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches; Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms, macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way of example: * Project Management; * Genealogy Records; * Cookbook, including nutritional data; * Contact Management; For Calc: Step One: Include R as part of the core install; Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc, that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example: * Financial Spread Betting; * Investment Analysis; * Earthquake Prediction; ### Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN, to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.) "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal user-configuration and no end-user integration required. ### Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality. A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images, etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft Office Binder. > I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be. For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases. As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic essay.) Built-in speech recognition would be a second example. Self-voicing functionality would be a third example. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >
Re: future of OpenOffice
Writing a list of the top 100 defects that are easy and YOU would like fixed IS the Apache Way. You can suggest and help. What is not the Apache Way is to force others. All the best! Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 13, 2017, at 7:09 PM, toki wrote: > >> On 01/13/2017 08:38 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: >> >> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately ... to > state they want to get involved. > > I've been sorely tempted to send them an email, telling them to > construct a specific add-on. I've a lot more ideas up my sleeve. > The other option is to assign them one of the 23,796 bugs, at random. > > Tisn't The Apache Way, but it points at something specific to do, for > which they might get the class credit they are wanting, and maybe even > the bug or add-on they were assigned materializes, fully functional, and > complete. > > jonathon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi - If support for Microsoft Office formats is desired and Java is not a problem then Apache has a 15 year old project called Apache POI. Also, Apache ODFToolkit is sitting in the Incubator for 5.5 years now with one developer - Svante. Conversion between ODF and OOXML is the only way to ultimate document freedom. Institutions cannot change - documents need to be write once and use anywhere. There is a way if there is a will. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 13, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > +1 :-D > > I will pick maybe some of the stuff up. > > >> On 13.01.2017 21:38, Chuck Davis wrote: >> Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :) >> >> It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a >> professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to >> state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are >> taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas. >> >> Thanks for being specific. >> >>> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki wrote: >>> On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: but I fail to see it in my use cases. >>> As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since >>> either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is >>> overkill for more than 90% of the user base. >>> >>> As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that >>> requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would >>> be more appropriate to use R & SQLite. >>> and start rolling out really useful features >>> For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality, >>> and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not >>> currently present in AOo. >>> >>> For Base: >>> Step One: Include SQLite; >>> Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well >>> enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches; >>> Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms, >>> macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way >>> of example: >>> * Project Management; >>> * Genealogy Records; >>> * Cookbook, including nutritional data; >>> * Contact Management; >>> >>> For Calc: >>> Step One: Include R as part of the core install; >>> Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc, >>> that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example: >>> * Financial Spread Betting; >>> * Investment Analysis; >>> * Earthquake Prediction; >>> >>> ### >>> >>> Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN, >>> to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that >>> provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears >>> to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.) >>> >>> "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a >>> practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll >>> back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite >>> --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal >>> user-configuration and no end-user integration required. >>> >>> ### >>> >>> Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In >>> theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality. >>> >>> A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images, >>> etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft >>> Office Binder. >>> I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be. >>> For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases. >>> >>> As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic >>> essay.) >>> >>> Built-in speech recognition would be a second example. >>> >>> Self-voicing functionality would be a third example. >>> >>> jonathon >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
+1 :-D I will pick maybe some of the stuff up. On 13.01.2017 21:38, Chuck Davis wrote: Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :) It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas. Thanks for being specific. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki wrote: On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: but I fail to see it in my use cases. As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is overkill for more than 90% of the user base. As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would be more appropriate to use R & SQLite. and start rolling out really useful features For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality, and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not currently present in AOo. For Base: Step One: Include SQLite; Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches; Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms, macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way of example: * Project Management; * Genealogy Records; * Cookbook, including nutritional data; * Contact Management; For Calc: Step One: Include R as part of the core install; Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc, that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example: * Financial Spread Betting; * Investment Analysis; * Earthquake Prediction; ### Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN, to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.) "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal user-configuration and no end-user integration required. ### Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality. A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images, etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft Office Binder. I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be. For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases. As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic essay.) Built-in speech recognition would be a second example. Self-voicing functionality would be a third example. jonathon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
+1!!
On 14.01.2017 00:11, Pedro wrote:
Hi Damjan, all
On 13/01/2017 17:15, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Pedro
wrote:
There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
Google Drive, etc)
Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved
in AOO
too. It's just that LO has an extra user interface for these files
and we
don't. You can open documents from "http://..."; and other URLs from our
normal file dialog instead, by entering the URL in place of the
filename.
We support http and derivatives like https and WebDav, ftp, file,
package
(ie. zip), several native ones like GVFS and GIO on Gnome, and a few
others.
Those are excellent news. I just tested it and it works perfectly!
Thanks!
Nevertheless, it is quite different from a user's point of view to
have a regular Open dialog where you can browse through your remote
files from knowing that you need to type the full URL to a document.
This is exactly where LibreOffice is further ahead in the commitment
to "eliminate the digital divide"...
Pedro
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
For the average user, the functional differences are irrelevant. More specifically, most people use only a fraction of the capabilities. LO offered DOCX support before AOO, and that was a difference noticeable to most users. For the hard core devoted follower, there are certainly philosophical differences related to code reuse, and people who care about that have probably already figured out that difference and chosen a side. For the end user, it makes little to no difference. Consider my macro document. Should I set the license such that you cannot use the samples unless you open your project? That is closer to LO than AOO. Apart from that, you are left with questions such as, do I find a user interface more attractive, a particular feature better supported, or reliability on my specific platform. My parents use what I choose to install on their computers. Andrew Pitonyak
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi Damjan, all
On 13/01/2017 17:15, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Pedro wrote:
There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
Google Drive, etc)
Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved in AOO
too. It's just that LO has an extra user interface for these files and we
don't. You can open documents from "http://..."; and other URLs from our
normal file dialog instead, by entering the URL in place of the filename.
We support http and derivatives like https and WebDav, ftp, file, package
(ie. zip), several native ones like GVFS and GIO on Gnome, and a few others.
Those are excellent news. I just tested it and it works perfectly! Thanks!
Nevertheless, it is quite different from a user's point of view to have
a regular Open dialog where you can browse through your remote files
from knowing that you need to type the full URL to a document.
This is exactly where LibreOffice is further ahead in the commitment to
"eliminate the digital divide"...
Pedro
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Toki, I'm very glad to hear SOMEBODY has imagination! :) It seems we've had quite a number of people coming here lately (like a professor someplace is sending them to get involved in open source) to state they want to get involved. I hope they and their professors are taking notes from your material! You have some very good ideas. Thanks for being specific. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:08 PM, toki wrote: > On 01/13/2017 03:15 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: > > > but I fail to see it in my use cases. > > As far as word processing is concerned, one can make a case that since > either WordStar 3.3 or WordPerfect 5.1, the proffered functionality is > overkill for more than 90% of the user base. > > As far as spreadsheets go, a case can be made that for anything that > requires more sophistication than than Lotus 1 2 3 version 4.0, it would > be more appropriate to use R & SQLite. > > > and start rolling out really useful features > > For Write, as a starting point, incorporate the features, functionality, > and capabilities, of both WordStar 3.3 & WordPerfect 5.1, that are not > currently present in AOo. > > For Base: > Step One: Include SQLite; > Step Two: Provide a UI that non-database specialists understand well > enough, to be able to intuitively create forms and do searches; > Step Three: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include Forms, > macros, etc, that makes such obvious and easy for all to utilize. By way > of example: > * Project Management; > * Genealogy Records; > * Cookbook, including nutritional data; > * Contact Management; > > For Calc: > Step One: Include R as part of the core install; > Step Two: Purpose-specific addons. Templates which include macros, etc, > that makes utilization obvious and easy for all. By way of example: > * Financial Spread Betting; > * Investment Analysis; > * Earthquake Prediction; > > ### > > Something that sort of surprises me, is that AOo hasn't worked with SVN, > to have "Save to SVN" as a standard feature. (The extension that > provided this functionality is completely broken for LibO, and appears > to be broken for AOo 4.1.3.) > > "Save to SVN" might look arcane, and not useful to anybody. As a > practical matter, it offers much better change control, and greater roll > back functionality, than anything currently offered for any office suite > --- if it does everything in the background, with minimal > user-configuration and no end-user integration required. > > ### > > Project Management is the most visible hole in FLOSS office suites. In > theory, a set of extensions and templates could provide this functionality. > > A second hole is the ability to wrap spreadsheets, documents, images, > etc into a single package. IOW, the functionality offered by Microsoft > Office Binder. > > > I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be. > > For the most part, you're looking at specific use-cases. > > As one example, "Print to Moon". (Explaining this requires an off-topic > essay.) > > Built-in speech recognition would be a second example. > > Self-voicing functionality would be a third example. > > jonathon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Pedro wrote:
> Hi Chuck
>
> I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to
>> me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you
>> tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do?
>>
>
> There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have:
>
> 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV,
> Google Drive, etc)
>
>
Not exactly. File access is provided by the UCB component ("universal
content broker", in main/ucb), and remote files can be opened/saved in AOO
too. It's just that LO has an extra user interface for these files and we
don't. You can open documents from "http://..."; and other URLs from our
normal file dialog instead, by entering the URL in place of the filename.
We support http and derivatives like https and WebDav, ftp, file, package
(ie. zip), several native ones like GVFS and GIO on Gnome, and a few others.
Damjan
Re: future of OpenOffice
Thank you, Pedro, for some specific features you use. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Pedro wrote: > Hi Chuck > > I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to >> me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you >> tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do? >> > > There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have: > > 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV, > Google Drive, etc) > > 2) Opening recent MS XML documents (quite a few show better results in LO > than AOO) > > 3) Saving in MS XML format. This is useful for exchanging documents with > those who can't or won't use LO or AOO, although it's true that saving in > this format is the wrong way to push ODF (and document freedom) forward > > 4) Using fast data filters in Calc (just check/uncheck items instead of > using the not-so-friendly Standard Filter) > > 5) Use a full window width horizontal scroll bar in Calc (this is unique > in LO) instead of a scroll bar limited to the space to the left of the > sheet tabs > > It's nearly half a dozen but are the ones I find really important on my > day-to-day work... > > Regards, > Pedro > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi Chuck I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do? There are in fact a few useful features in LO that AOO does not have: 1) Opening/saving remote files from several sources (OwnCloud, WebDAV, Google Drive, etc) 2) Opening recent MS XML documents (quite a few show better results in LO than AOO) 3) Saving in MS XML format. This is useful for exchanging documents with those who can't or won't use LO or AOO, although it's true that saving in this format is the wrong way to push ODF (and document freedom) forward 4) Using fast data filters in Calc (just check/uncheck items instead of using the not-so-friendly Standard Filter) 5) Use a full window width horizontal scroll bar in Calc (this is unique in LO) instead of a scroll bar limited to the space to the left of the sheet tabs It's nearly half a dozen but are the ones I find really important on my day-to-day work... Regards, Pedro - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Thank you, Jonathon, for giving us something specific. I get so weary of LO people (and most of the media world it seems) spouting how much better LO is but I fail to see it in my use cases. Most of what you have pointed out is not applicable to the vast majority of users I would guess. I keep waiting to see the open source world quit copying the latest gimic from MS and start rolling out really useful features -- and, no, I don't have enough imagination to know what those might be. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:43 AM, toki wrote: > On 01/12/2017 04:52 PM, Chuck Davis wrote: > > > tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do? > > From a corporate POV, the two most significant differences are: > * TSCP/BAILS classification; > * PDF signing; > > For linguists, and users of endangered/minority languages, the most > significant differences are: > * LibO 5.3 more accurately displays non-horizontal writing systems than > AOo 4.1.3; > * LibO 5.3 more accurately displays Indus Valley writing systems than > AOo 4.1.3; > > Neither LibO nor AOo can handle reverse boustrophedon writing systems. :( > > For the rest of use, the most significant differences are: > > * Table Styles; > > * Swapping out custom palettes --- gradients, hashes, colours --- is > much easier in LibO 5.3 than AOo 4.1.3. > Semi-related, but keeping track of 500 different palettes in LibO 5.3 is > much easier than with AOo 4.1.3. > > > LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) > opened it perfectly and gave me > > AOo is far more tolerant of malformed documents than LibO is. > OTOH, LibO can import from, and export to more file formats than AOo. > I am not saying that LibO correctly imports/exports said file formats. > > > And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid "ribbon" thingy to be > even more annoying and counter-productive. > > I'm not sure if you are referring to MUFFIN in general, or the > NoteBookBar in specific. > > Regardless, with a slight increase in complexity, user customization > increases dramatically. You have a choice of: > * NetbookBar; > * SideBar; > * TopBar; > * Sidebar with TopBar; > * None of the above. (This requires the user to do a lot of mucking > about in the "Expert Configuration" part of LibO. It requires even more > time and patience to correctly configure everything to be keystroke > reachable. I haven't tested this part out. Misconfiguration can require > complete uninstallation of all files, then re-installing the program.); > > At least initially, use of the NetBookBar is _discouraged_. Odds are the > only support it will see, is from third party extensions. > > Wondering how long before somebody creates a theme for LibO, that > includes a NetBookBar. AFAIK, custom themes are not yet possible for AOo. > > > So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common > user? > > The most important thing to know, is what the use-case is: > > * Do you really need an office suite? > * Would a stand alone program be more suitable? > > If your cyberlife consists of: > > * Playing games, then GoDot is a better alternative;(^1) > * Dwelling in spreadsheets, perhaps Gnumeric is more suitable; > * Writing scientific reports, a TeX solution might be more suitable; > * Creating pretty charts, R is more suitable; > * Drawing pretty pictures, GIMP is more suitable; > * Creating movies, Cinelerra is more suitable; > * Animating things, do the whole thing with Blender; > * Databases, then Python and SQLite, PostGres, or MariaDB is more suitable; > > > ^1: All of the games (Flight Simulator, Space Invaders, Tick Tack Toe) > have been removed from LibO and AOo. However, templates for various > games are available. > > jonathon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2017 um 11:39 schrieb RA Stehmann: > > I am looking for a Template for "Game of live". Sorry: "Game of life" Regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2017 um 10:43 schrieb toki: > ^1: All of the games (Flight Simulator, Space Invaders, Tick Tack Toe) > have been removed from LibO and AOo. However, templates for various > games are available. I am looking for a Template for "Game of live". Kind reagards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hello guys. It stays as it is. Currently a merge is not possible. I assume this request is not taken seriously on the LO side, since most information we had in this discussion is pointing out the differences of both sister projects and not advocate the things they share. If anyone really wants to have a merge it will take him a lot of discussion to convince both sides how much they have in common. Then if the positive attitude seeds we would need a project which is done by both dev communities. In order to build trust. On the way we have some social issues to solve. Even if Jörg expressed it in a emotional way, he is not wrong. Community members of LO did damage their own renown. Maybe we have OO users that do the same with our renown without our knowledge. I do not see how this discussion can successfully stay on target. I would like to point out this discussion was in my opinion mostly professional conducted. That is a good sign in general. And I thank every one for the try. I would like to see more of this professionalism from guests on our list. Thanks a lot. toki schrieb am Fr., 13. Jan. 2017, 08:22: > On 01/13/2017 12:48 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote: > > > I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence and even > convergence of code, effort, vision > > The difference between the code base of the two projects is almost at > the point where merging back into one is no longer a practical proposition. > > > and also because I did not see a solution to the situation. > > Reconcile yourself to having both LibO and AOo for as long their > sponsoring foundations are willing to keep them. > > Personally, I am somewhat surprised that ODFTools hasn't been used as > the core of an office suite that serves a specific target population > that other office suites ignore. > > jonathon > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > -- Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 13.01.2017 um 01:26 schrieb Simos Xenitellis: > > There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org > that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice. > > I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply > show > a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options. We had this request some times before. Our answer was each time a clear "no". Nothing has changed in the meanwhile. There are no (new) reasons, why we should do this. So this question is needless. Kind regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 12.01.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Dave: > On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote: >> Is the past on topic for the future? > > Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread, I do not want to answer to your post, but the questions are caused by the post of Nagy Ákos some minutes before. Kind regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
On 12 January 2017 at 18:29, Simon Phipps wrote: > S. > (speaking here only as an AOO community member) Thanks, Simon. I have long desired for there to be a useful confluence and even convergence of code, effort, vision--I mean between LO and AOO. Would still be nice, if only for the sake of large-scale users. I left AOO PMC a while ago, in part because of other calls on my time, and also because I did not see a solution to the situation. best louis - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Michael Stehmann wrote: > Hello, > > this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet. > > If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice > versa. > > We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any > topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again. > There is the standing issue with the old www.openoffice.org that has been repurposed as the front page for Apache OpenOffice. I would expect that the historical hostname "www.openoffice.org" to simply show a list of OpenOffice.org-based projects, and inform the visitor their options. Specifically, it should show Apache OpenOffice Libreoffice NeoOffice -> apache.openoffice.org -> www.libreoffice.org -> www.neooffice.org I am happy to design and propose such a page. Simos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi Dave, all. On 12 Jan 2017 22:50, "Dave Fisher" wrote: Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as I know the sequence of events is: OpenOffice.org was originally dual licensed under LGPLv2 and SISSL (OSI approved but now retired). With v3 we changed the license to LGPLv3 only. When Oracle bought Sun, OO.o was licensed just under LGPLv3. Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source OpenOffice.org (GPL2). At the time of purchase, the proprietary version was called "StarOffice"; Oracle changed the name of this proprietary version to Oracle Open Office. TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2 LibreOffice was only under LGPLv3 at this point as any other choice would have required the copyright owner to relicense. At some point (not sure when) TDF requested contributions be made under both LGPLv3 and MPLv2 in the hope of future relicensing, and invited Oracle to participate. Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy. IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an IBM employee following ASF policy. The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO. I doubt TDF could have integrated all the contributions to LO it received under LGPLv3 and MPLv2 any other way. That is the sequence. One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what happens here. Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to consume AL2 software. The license a community uses is an expression of its outlook and norms. Apache and TDF have differing outlooks (although they have remarkably similar governance) so it's no surprise their license choices differ as well. I'd hesitate to declare either Apache or TDF's choices as better for everything and consequently have advocated for both at various times. Cheers, S. (speaking here only as an AOO community member) Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Thanks for the correction. > >> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: >> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html >> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache >> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, >> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. >> >> An article about this: >> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with -openoffice-update/ >> >> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: >>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia >>> >>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : >>> > On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe,
Re: future of OpenOffice
Please correct the specific non Apache licenses if I get them wrong. As far as I know the sequence of events is: Oracle buys Sun including OpenOffice (closed license) and the open source OpenOffice.org (GPL2). TheDocumentFoundation forms and forks OpenOffice.org as LibreOffice under GPL2 Oracle donates OpenOffice.org to the Apache Software Foundation relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an Oracle employee following ASF policy. IBM donates OpenSymphony to the ASF relicensed to AL2. Headers changed by an IBM employee following ASF policy. The Document Foundation takes much of the Apache OpenOffice AL2 licensed software and rebases LO on it. This allows integration of OpenSymphony code. Completely permissible under the AL2. They re-did the license of all the source as MPL2 changing the headers. Some think that this is shady although permitted. In effect this prevents LO updates from being contributed back to AOO. That is the sequence. One could ask on LO lists why they did this, but all we know here is what happens here. Some say it is more fun to develop LO. Others like Patricia and I like the benefits of consuming AL2 software as opposed to GPL. Certainly TDF likes to consume AL2 software. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 12, 2017, at 10:29 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > Thanks for the correction. > >> On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: >> https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html >> Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache >> 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, >> but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. >> >> An article about this: >> http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/ >> >> 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: >>> See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia >>> >>> 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : >>> > On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Thanks for the correction. On 1/12/2017 7:38 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. An article about this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/ 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
On 12.01.2017 16:54, RA Stehmann wrote: > Is the past on topic for the future? Assuming that you are responding to my post in this thread, the answer to your question is no. My post was nothing more than a simple correction of Patricia's seemingly mistaken idea that the original LO code came from AOO under ALv2, which would have been impossible, because AOO did not exist when LO forked from OOo in September 2010. > Is a dogmatist a good pontifex? I understand the convoluted words of your rhetorical question, but the point you are attempting to make eludes me. > Regards > Michael Regards Dave - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Nagy, I'm a simple user so the code base and license are completely irrelevant to me. What IS relevant is the way the software works. So, please, can you tell me half a dozen things that LO can do that OO cannot do? I recently was given a 30,000 row excel sheet to read into a database so that I could use it with a Java front end. LO choked (version 5.2.2.2 on Linux), OO (version 4.1.2 on same machine) opened it perfectly and gave me a progress bar to indicate it was working. In my experience the LO writer user interface sucks -- badly. In my experience the LO calc interface has become almost as annoying as the MS Excel interface. And now, I hear, they are going to add that stupid "ribon" thingy to be even more annoying and counter-productive. So code quantity or quality aside, what can LO do for me as a common user? The Google "trend" you point to seems to indicate that people in Brazil and Arabia can't figure out how to use LOsays nothing about OO as far as I can tell except that OO is easier to use since the rest of the world isn't asking as many questions about it. Thanks for any insight you can provide. On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Nagy Ákos wrote: > I wrote something that is not true? > About the trends: > https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice > > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
Is the past on topic for the future? Is a dogmatist a good pontifex? Regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
https://www.openoffice.org/licenses/lgpl_license.html Based on this page, OpenOffice change the license from LGPLv3 to Apache 2.0 only when Oracle donate the code to Apache Foundation in june 2011, but LibreOffice was forked from OOo in september 2010. An article about this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/what-the-heck-is-happening-with-openoffice-update/ 2017. 01. 12. 15:25 keltezéssel, Tsutomu Uchino írta: > See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia > > 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : > >> On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: >>> On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. >>> That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier >>> to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have >>> kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. >> The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: >> https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ >> >> In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 >> under the same license. >> >> Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the >> ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. >> >> In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of >> the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked >> from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. >> >> Please let's not try to rewrite history. >> >> -- >> Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to >> this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will >> never be read. >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
See this mail: http://legal-discuss.markmail.org/thread/mleqsm636zf5fqia 2017-01-12 6:18 GMT+09:00 Dave : > On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be > >> merged in OpenOffice. > > > > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. > > The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: > https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ > > In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 > under the same license. > > Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the > ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. > > In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of > the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked > from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. > > Please let's not try to rewrite history. > > -- > Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to > this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will > never be read. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
Re: future of OpenOffice
On 11.01.2017 09:44, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy �kos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. The first release of OOo v3 was under LGPLv3 per Louis Suarez-Potts: https://lwn.net/Articles/272202/ In September 2010 LO forked from OOo and released LO 3.3 in January 2011 under the same license. Around 6 months later in June 2011 Oracle donated the LGPLv3 code to the ASF and AOO 3.4 was released in May 2012 under ALv2. In spite of a seemingly contradictory statement on the license page of the LO website, the above dates clearly show that LO code was forked from the original OOo code, not from the AOO code. Please let's not try to rewrite history. -- Please address any reply to the mailing list only. Any messages sent to this noreply@ address are automatically deleted from the server and will never be read. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hello, anything is possible if you want it. And if you really want it, a merger with LO is also possible. The problem is that AOO is way behind. Even if you don't want to hear it: Too little has happened over the last several years. Ages ago we discussed what to do about version 5.0 - nothing about it has happened so far. LO has overtaken us by far. Sometime ago we discussed what to do about version 4.2 - and now we seem to be discussing version 4.1.4. That would only be a very minor step. And no, you don't say EOD because the merger is, allegedly, not possible. You say EOD because it hurts you to acknowledge the shortcomings of the work on AOO and you want to put that behind you and to ltrundle on in the old slow speed. And, @ Jörg, you might want to be more careful about the choice of your words. Just because someone says something you don't want to hear what they say is not necessarily bad propaganda or an attack. The way you react reminds me of Trump's tweets to criticism. And it is not the way to conduct an orderly discussion. Max Am 11.01.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Matthias Seidel: Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann: Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos: The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. Each developer own our part from code. And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open, with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the OOo code, and close it. So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible. That is a good reason for EOD. Regards Michael +1 Regards, Matthias - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:43 schrieb RA Stehmann: > Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos: >> The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. >> Each developer own our part from code. >> >> And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the >> licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open, >> with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the >> OOo code, and close it. >> > So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible. > That is a good reason for EOD. > > Regards > Michael +1 Regards, Matthias smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 11.01.2017 um 11:34 schrieb Nagy Ákos: > The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. > Each developer own our part from code. > > And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the > licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open, > with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the > OOo code, and close it. > So a merge with the ASF as suggested by Suhail Ansari is not possible. That is a good reason for EOD. Regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
The code is owned by comunity (1500+ individual people) not by TDF. Each developer own our part from code. And I don't think that majority from this people want to change the licence, because with LGPL+MPL the whole LO code need to be leave open, with apache licence the code can be closed, like IMB Symphony grab the OOo code, and close it. 2017. 01. 11. 11:55 keltezéssel, FR web forum írta: > TDF could be give up these copyleft licences. > Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this > LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence > :-) > > - Mail original - > De: "Patricia Shanahan" > À: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26 > Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice > > On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote: >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier > to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have > kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. > > For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was > writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should > have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does > not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to > anything that uses their licenses. > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Am 11.01.2017 um 09:44 schrieb Patricia Shanahan: > For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was > writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should > have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does > not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to > anything that uses their licenses. The difference between the Apache Licence and the licences, which are promoted by the FSF, is the so called "Copyleft". The Apache licence has no copyleft. But copyleft gives the programmer more and not less control, because nobody can make a proprietary (non free) product of the code without the permission of the copyright holder (programmer). That is why some supporters of copyleftless licence say, that these licences are more free than licence containing a copyleft. That is a question, whether you are the user or the creator of the code. For an enduser of the code copyleft brings potentially more freedom. If you are a developer, using code under a copyleftless licence is much easier. But if you are the programmer of the used code, you have more control, what people do with your product. Kind regards Michael signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
TDF could be give up these copyleft licences. Maybe, we could create a petition to ask this LibO, please bring back to AL v2 licence :-) - Mail original - De: "Patricia Shanahan" À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26 Objet: Re: future of OpenOffice On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote: > Hi, > > it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be > merged in OpenOffice. That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to anything that uses their licenses. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
The problem is another, you are trying to sow uncertainty here. This is a method I only know of LO / TDF sympatizers and only against OpenOffice. Never have I experienced the LO / TDF sympatizers attacking other Office projects. Likewise, I have not experienced the OO sympathizers try the same on LO mailing-lists. Jörg > -Original Message- > From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 9:30 AM > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: future of OpenOffice > > I wrote something that is not true? > About the trends: > https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice > > Finantial report: > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualRepor > t2015LR.pdf > https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf > > > > 2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel, Jörg Schmidt írta: > >> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] > >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be > >> merged in OpenOffice. > >> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, > >> more exactly > >> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because > >> the OO code > >> is outdated compared with LO code. > >> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice > > No. You spread only bad propaganda. > > > > Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that > you have changed your > > address from nagy.a...@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on > this list here) to > > a...@romkat.ro (today)? > > > > > > What you try here is typical FUD. > > > > > > Jörg > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
2017. 01. 11. 10:26 keltezéssel, Raphael Bircher írta: > Hi Akos > > Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos : > >> Hi, >> >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. > As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put > there code to Apache License 2.0. We talk about more then 1500 individual contributors. > >> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly >> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code >> is outdated compared with LO code. > How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO > maintain there code. Please come with facts. Sorry, maybe not the outdated expression is a good expression but someting similar. AOO has 13598 commits from 2011 (including webpage changes) and LO has aprox 10 commits in same time. I know that only the commit number not equal with the code quality, but represent progress in code quality too. https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice/commits/summary https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice/commits/summary > >> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some >> other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't >> have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc. >> You can compare the development trends: > > Libre Office is maybe popular at the Linux world, and even there exist > Users who kick LO and install OpenOffice. There are big features in LO > who simply shipped over to LO. Native SVG Import. Mac OS X 64 Bit > port, and the Sidebar for exemple. Many of the added Features are > simply buddled Extensions. > > More feature dosen't mean a better product. If you add a load of new > bugs to the software in the same time, the user will not be happy. You are right, if the new features means only new bugs. But some features is necessary for daily work. And many features is very useful and for many people is required: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/3.4 ... https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.3 > >> https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki) >> https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code) >> >> Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation, >> and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part >> from their income spend for OO. > Apache spend more or less only the infrastructure. TDF and ASF are not > comparebel. ASF does not found individual projects at all. Not even > the ApacheCon is founded over ASF budget. > > Regards, Raphael > > >> >> 2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta: >>> Hi, >>> >>> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice >>> community. >>> >>> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of >>> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should >>> talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their >>> foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's >>> biggest open source software foundation and if the document >>> foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). >>> The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, >>> tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the >>> document foundation to work together. >>> >>> >>> Suhail Ansari >>> >>> >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
> From: Dr. Michael Stehmann [mailto:anw...@rechtsanwalt-stehmann.de] > Hello, > > this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend > tasks yet. > > If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find > us. And vice > versa. > > We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any > topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again. > > If LO people want to support AOO, they know how. If the want to > collaborate, they know to whom they should talk to. > > Our invitations to put code also under the Apache Licence (v2), to > collaborate in marketing and documentation etc. are still valid. > > IMO it makes sense to continue both projects, AOO and LO. Thank you for this very clear statement. Greetings, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
On 1/10/2017 11:29 PM, Nagy Ákos wrote: Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. That choice of license was very unfortunate, and a regrettable barrier to cooperation between the projects. When LO split off they could have kept the Apache license and the potential for future cooperation. For most of my career, the only way I had of earning a living was writing software. The FSF's basic philosophy is that programmers should have no right to own and control the products of their labor. That does not seem very free to me. For that reason, I'll never donate my labor to anything that uses their licenses. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hello, this discussion is really useless. We have to do more urgend tasks yet. If TDF people want to talk with us, they know where to find us. And vice versa. We have talked a lot in the past. But at the moment I can not see any topic, which is worth to be discussed another time again. If LO people want to support AOO, they know how. If the want to collaborate, they know to whom they should talk to. Our invitations to put code also under the Apache Licence (v2), to collaborate in marketing and documentation etc. are still valid. IMO it makes sense to continue both projects, AOO and LO. Kind regards Michael . signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
The only way to stop this kind of discussion is to concentrate on the release of OpenOffice 4.1.4. We have enough code, we have enough translations. So let's move on! ;-) Kind regards, Matthias Seidel Am 11.01.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Jörg Schmidt: >> From: suhail ansari [mailto:iamsuhailans...@outlook.com] >> My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for >> OpenOffice community. >> >> OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of >> downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation >> should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge >> their foundation with Apache software foundation because > -1 > > The original does not have to speak with the fork. > I will never forget how often LO members of OO have spoken badly. > >> Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and >> if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one >> product (OpenOffice). > -1 > > I am only a committer, but I will never agree. If the TDF join the ASF I will > leave the ASF. > >> It >> will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work >> together. > But not good for the quality of the product OpenOffice. We can see at LO > every day > what is the hurried development for the quality. > > > > Greetings, > Jörg > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: future of OpenOffice
I wrote something that is not true? About the trends: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=openoffice,libreoffice Finantial report: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/images/7/7e/TDFAnnualReport2015LR.pdf https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/990-2014.pdf 2017. 01. 11. 10:21 keltezéssel, Jörg Schmidt írta: >> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] >> it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be >> merged in OpenOffice. >> The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, >> more exactly >> the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because >> the OO code >> is outdated compared with LO code. >> The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice > No. You spread only bad propaganda. > > Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that you have changed > your > address from nagy.a...@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on this list here) to > a...@romkat.ro (today)? > > > What you try here is typical FUD. > > > Jörg > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi Akos Am .01.2017, 08:29 Uhr, schrieb Nagy Ákos : Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. As whole package yes, but you can ask individual contributors to put there code to Apache License 2.0. The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code is outdated compared with LO code. How you know, the AOO Code is outdated? We maintain the code, as LO maintain there code. Please come with facts. The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc. You can compare the development trends: Libre Office is maybe popular at the Linux world, and even there exist Users who kick LO and install OpenOffice. There are big features in LO who simply shipped over to LO. Native SVG Import. Mac OS X 64 Bit port, and the Sidebar for exemple. Many of the added Features are simply buddled Extensions. More feature dosen't mean a better product. If you add a load of new bugs to the software in the same time, the user will not be happy. https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki) https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code) Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation, and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part from their income spend for OO. Apache spend more or less only the infrastructure. TDF and ASF are not comparebel. ASF does not found individual projects at all. Not even the ApacheCon is founded over ASF budget. Regards, Raphael 2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta: Hi, My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together. Suhail Ansari - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Mein Blog: https://raphaelbircher.blogspot.ch - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
> From: Nagy Ákos [mailto:a...@romkat.ro] > it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be > merged in OpenOffice. > The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, > more exactly > the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because > the OO code > is outdated compared with LO code. > The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice No. You spread only bad propaganda. Do you really think we are so stupid not to remember that you have changed your address from nagy.a...@libreoffice.ro (on 26.09.2016 on this list here) to a...@romkat.ro (today)? What you try here is typical FUD. Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Hi, it is impossible, because the LO license is LGPL+MPL, that can't be merged in OpenOffice. The single way is that OpenOffice can merge in LibreOffice, more exactly the OpenOffice.org is redirected to LibreOffice.org, because the OO code is outdated compared with LO code. The LibreOffice brand now is more popular than OpenOffice, and some other facts: LibreOffice have few hundred new features that OO don't have, LibreOffice have a cloud suit (LibreOffice Online) etc. You can compare the development trends: https://www.openhub.net/p/openoffice (include webpage and wiki) https://www.openhub.net/p/libreoffice (only application code) Based on financial reports, TDF has income equal to Apache Foundation, and TDF spend all money to LibreOffice, but Apache only a little part from their income spend for OO. 2017. 01. 10. 20:43 keltezéssel, suhail ansari írta: > Hi, > > My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. > > OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My > suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document > foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software > foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation > and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product > (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like > hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document > foundation to work together. > > > Suhail Ansari > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
> From: suhail ansari [mailto:iamsuhailans...@outlook.com] > My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for > OpenOffice community. > > OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of > downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation > should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge > their foundation with Apache software foundation because -1 The original does not have to speak with the fork. I will never forget how often LO members of OO have spoken badly. > Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and > if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one > product (OpenOffice). -1 I am only a committer, but I will never agree. If the TDF join the ASF I will leave the ASF. > It > will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work > together. But not good for the quality of the product OpenOffice. We can see at LO every day what is the hurried development for the quality. Greetings, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
I think we are not in a position to successfully ask what you would like us to do. In the matter of the fact I do not believe LO does have much respect for us, and some of us are deeply hurt. Maybe the same on LO side. And I am not convinced this will heal just quickly. The simplest solution is to be patient. The complicated is to find a way to heal the wounds that are there. Have fun! Peter suhail ansari schrieb am Di., 10. Jan. 2017, 19:55: > Hi, > > My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. > > OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My > suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document > foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software > foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software > foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one > product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software > products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF > and the document foundation to work together. > > > Suhail Ansari > > -- Disclaimer: Diese Nachricht stammt aus einem Google Account. Ihre Antwort wird in der Google Cloud Gespeichert und durch Google Algorythmen zwecks werbeanaöysen gescannt. Es ist derzeit nicht auszuschließen das ihre Nachricht auch durch einen NSA Mitarbeiter geprüft wird. Durch kommunikation mit diesen Account stimmen Sie zu das ihre Mail, ihre Kontaktdaten und die Termine die Sie mit mir vereinbaren online zu Google konditionen in der Googlecloud gespeichert wird. Sollten sie dies nicht wünschen kontaktieren sie mich bitte Umgehend um z.B. alternativen zu verhandeln.
Re: future of OpenOffice
CCed to OP (not subscribed to the list). Le 10/01/2017 à 20:21, FR web forum a écrit : Already discussed http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201608.mbox/%3CCALR982mG0baX7i4StBissjVOYDOgfb%3DVMzgOs-0%3DqezMZyi2cg%40mail.gmail.com%3E - Mail original - De: "suhail ansari" À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Mardi 10 Janvier 2017 19:43:04 Objet: future of OpenOffice Hi, My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together. Suhail Ansari - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: future of OpenOffice
Already discussed http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201608.mbox/%3CCALR982mG0baX7i4StBissjVOYDOgfb%3DVMzgOs-0%3DqezMZyi2cg%40mail.gmail.com%3E - Mail original - De: "suhail ansari" À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Mardi 10 Janvier 2017 19:43:04 Objet: future of OpenOffice Hi, My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together. Suhail Ansari - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
future of OpenOffice
Hi, My name is Suhail and I have some suggestions for OpenOffice community. OpenOffice is very popular and it attracts large number of downloads. My suggestion is that Apache software foundation should talk to the document foundation and ask them to merge their foundation with Apache software foundation because Apache is world's biggest open source software foundation and if the document foundation joins Apache then we can have one product (OpenOffice). The ASF has many popular open source software products like hadoop, tomcat, OpenOffice etc. It will be good for both ASF and the document foundation to work together. Suhail Ansari
