Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LibreOffice Is The New OpenOffice.org

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    They WANT to keep the name OpenOffice. They CAN'T keep the name because Oracle has a *trademark* on it. They are HOPING Oracle will donate that trademark to them so they CAN keep the name.
    They could always keep the name if they contributed to Oracle's codebase instead of forking though and went with an Oracle-led project so your claim is not altogether true.

    Comment


    • #32
      Pretty much the key thing here is the community wants to take more power than it ever has had even including the days when it was Sun pulling the strings.

      Comment


      • #33
        Right

        Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
        Pretty much the key thing here is the community wants to take more power than it ever has had even including the days when it was Sun pulling the strings.
        Oh, no! The evil OpenOffice.org community is making a grab for power at the expense of the righteous Oracle!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Plombo View Post
          Oh, no! The evil OpenOffice.org community is making a grab for power at the expense of the righteous Oracle!
          It's not about who's big and who's small or who's good and who's bad. It's about whether people are being practical or not. Killing off a known Office brand to spite Oracle is not being practical.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
            It's not about who's big and who's small or who's good and who's bad. It's about whether people are being practical or not. Killing off a known Office brand to spite Oracle is not being practical.
            Okay, that's a reasonable opinion. It's not the impression I got from that post, though.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
              It's not about who's big and who's small or who's good and who's bad. It's about whether people are being practical or not. Killing off a known Office brand to spite Oracle is not being practical.
              I don't think anyone is doing it out of spite. There have been issues between the community and Sun for a long time, causing efforts like GO-Open Office. Now that Oracle has taken over, I don't think there was any spite, but just a sense that things were likely to get worse rather than better under Oracle. So it was a good time to actually get together and do something about it before that happened.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                They could always keep the name if they contributed to Oracle's codebase instead of forking though and went with an Oracle-led project so your claim is not altogether true.
                Sun (previously) and Oracle (now) require copyright assignment by contributors to OpenOffice. This allows them to close the source at any point without looking back. Add the fact that Oracle is extremely hostile to open-source software and it's no wonder that LibreOffice was born.

                Note that LibreOffice does not require copyright assignment and it's backed by pretty much all major players in the Linux world. This is not a random fork from a random bloke but a coordinated effort to protect an important part of the ecosystem.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by energyman View Post
                  no, it isn't
                  It comes from the Latin, liber

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by yotambien View Post
                    Well, the problem in Spanish, and probably also in Italian and Portuguese at least, is that it sounds retarded, because it's like a mashup of an existing word, "libre", with a foreign one, with the added problem of the reversed order of the adjective. It sounds awful.
                    Maybe it's the first time I agree with yotambien.
                    In Greek even (despite that both words are foreign) it sounds crappy. For sure whoever chose that name, has a very very bad taste...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                      Maybe it's the first time I agree with yotambien.
                      In Greek even (despite that both words are foreign) it sounds crappy. For sure whoever chose that name, has a very very bad taste...
                      Ah, short memory, Mr. Apopas. It's actually the SECOND (but I'm not going to look up the post : ). And I'm going to give you the third right now (oh, noes!): however horrible the new name sounds, this is a very good move. There weren't good vibrations coming from Oracle for OSS (like not at all). Even with Sun, OO's development wasn't ideal, with contributions finding it difficult to reach upstream, not only because of the copyright assignment. This empowers OO's community and hopefully it'll get more traction and support among the big players.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        THIS is the power of GPL.

                        Sun, in a bout of insanity and anger, decided to GPL StarOffice to spite Microsoft.

                        A few short years later, they get purchased by Oracle and the wind is blowing in a different direction. But nobody can take OpenOffice away from the community anymore.

                        With a whole range of other "open" licenses, OOo would be dead as a parrot right now. You know, the "transfer copyright", "send patches", "only Sun can distribute the code" stuff, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by KDesk View Post
                          It comes from the Latin, liber
                          It's spanish and french origin for liberty, free.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                            Add the fact that Oracle is extremely hostile to open-source software
                            Is there honestly anything else than the OpenSolaris incident that gives any basis to this claim?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              well, they pay for BTRFS development. Must be the hostility.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
                                Is there honestly anything else than the OpenSolaris incident that gives any basis to this claim?
                                Yes. There was a recent, *very* ugly Java incident.

                                Let's recap. Oracle has acquired five major OSS projects from Sun: OpenSolaris, Java, MySQL, OpenOffice and VirtualBox. It has already made moves against two of those, or 40%.

                                Is that not enough? Here is a comment from Ellison himself:
                                "If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it," said Ellison. "Take [the web server software] Apache: once Apache got better than our own web server, we threw it away and took Apache. So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it -- a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is not disruptive at all -- you have to find places to add value. Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane."

                                In short, "Just like software-as-a-service, we have to be good at it. We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source."
                                Source

                                Need more?
                                Oracle has shut down servers Sun Microsystems was contributing to the build farm for open source database software, PostgreSQL, forcing enthusiasts to scramble to find new hosts to test updates to their software on the Solaris operating system.
                                [...]
                                "If they had given us, say, three months warning, I'd have been less peeved," Dunstan told iTnews. "It can't have been costing them much - the thing pretty much runs itself, and they can't be short on hardware."

                                The move raises questions as to whether Oracle is willing to embrace open source ethics as the new custodian of the MySQL database, acquired as part of the Sun buy.
                                Source

                                This is not how an OSS-friendly company operates.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X