Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-14 Thread Pedro Giffuni
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-14 Thread esh1907
-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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Wolf Halton
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Dave Fisher
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: > >>

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Dave Fisher
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Peter Kovacs
+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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Peter Kovacs
+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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Andrew Pitonyak
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Pedro
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,

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Chuck Davis
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Damjan Jovanovic
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Chuck Davis
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Pedro
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:

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Chuck Davis
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread RA Stehmann
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

2017-01-13 Thread RA Stehmann
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-13 Thread Peter Kovacs
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
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.

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Louis Suárez-Potts
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Simos Xenitellis
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Simon Phipps
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).

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Dave Fisher
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Patricia Shanahan
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Chuck Davis
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread RA Stehmann
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

2017-01-12 Thread Nagy Ákos
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:

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-12 Thread Tsutomu Uchino
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread 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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Max Merbald
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 -

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread 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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread 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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Nagy Ákos
e: "Patricia Shanahan" <p...@acm.org> > 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 LGP

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread FR web forum
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" <p...@acm.org> À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Mercredi 11 Janvier 2017 09:44:26 O

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Jörg Schmidt
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? > A

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Nagy Ákos
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Jörg Schmidt
> 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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Patricia Shanahan
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Dr. Michael Stehmann
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Matthias Seidel
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Nagy Ákos
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-11 Thread Raphael Bircher
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-10 Thread Nagy Ákos
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-10 Thread 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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-10 Thread Peter Kovacs
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-10 Thread Hagar Delest
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

Re: future of OpenOffice

2017-01-10 Thread FR web forum
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