Girard Aquino wrote: > David B Teague wrote: >> NoOp wrote: >>> On 03/18/2009 08:07 AM, Harold Fuchs wrote: >>> >>>> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/article5929716.ece >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yes I saw that... one can only hope that OOo doesn't disapear into Lotus >>> Symphony (which works ok and has it's place I suppose in some >>> environments). >>> >>> >> In the past, IBM has supported FOSS, bu that was mostly Linux, but >> they might continue to support OO.o. We can only hope. >> >> > and would OOo development cease then?
I do not think so. OOo is distributed under an open source license and can be forked. Actually, if and when OOo gets released from Sun's control and gets forked, perhaps its development might actually accelerate with new features added and long standing features requests being listened to by active developers who would not feel shackled anymore by Sun's tight claustrophobic control. The situation would be similar to what happened to Xserver when it was forked to Xorg. Now Xorg is the default installation in almost all mainstream Linux distros and is much more feature rich and is being actively developed and continues to add features. Xserver, on the other hand, is more or less stagnant, mainly because of excessive control by its original developers. Search for its history on google, it makes for interesting reading. -- Please reply to this list only. I read this list on its corresponding newsgroup on gmane.org. Replies sent to my email address are just filtered to a folder in my mailbox and get periodically deleted without ever having been read. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
