The Document Foundation Clarifies LibreOffice 7.0's "Personal Edition" Branding

[pal666]

MPL-2.0 permits proprietary code (or code under any license) to be mixed in and distributed as part of a larger work. The only stipulations are that the MPL-2.0 portions of the larger work have to made available to the public.

does it permit it only after subj announcement, or it was always permitted and nothing had changed?

[pal666]

This completely undermines the FOSS community trying to get open-source productivity tools into the enterprise arena (and replacing Microsoft Office).

To then turn around and call the open-source version "Personal" is utterly disloyal and almost ensures that middle managers will look down upon it as "non-enterprise ready".

what is your suggestion, to call open-source version "enterprise"? btw, existence of non-opensource version is product of your imagination

[starshipeleven]

Isn't that the case. However they have zero chance of making in roads with corporate America.

the world is bigger than that

[starshipeleven]

Libreoffice has done some work to port it to run on a web browser. Obviously they are seeing some potential cash coming there way by milking "Cloud idiots" and are letting greed pave the way.

not sure how that is just for "cloud idiots".

[stanandollie]

Could always do to LO what LO did to OO.

[kpedersen]

what is your suggestion, to call open-source version "enterprise"? btw, existence of non-opensource version is product of your imagination

How about we call the open-source version "LibreOffice". And the "enterprise versions of the office suite with paid support or the like" can be called "LibreOffice Non-free". Catchy huh?

It is all down to this basically: https://www.libreoffice.org/download...office-online/

The code has a "warning displayed". I am also fairly sure the "enterprise code" required to make it truely support more than 20 users (rather than just hiding the nag box) will never make it into the open. They know this and are preparing.

[starshipeleven]

How about we call the open-source version "LibreOffice". And the "enterprise versions of the office suite with paid support or the like" can be called "LibreOffice Non-free". Catchy huh?

How does paid support make an open-source software non-free?

It is all down to this basically: https://www.libreoffice.org/download...office-online/

The code has a "warning displayed". I am also fairly sure the "enterprise code" required to make it truely support more than 20 users (rather than just hiding the nag box) will never make it into the open. They know this and are preparing.

TINFOIL, CONSPIRACY, GRAYS!!! AAAAAAA WHY READ WHEN YOU CAN HALLUCINATE

Really you are posting complete bullshit.

What is hard to understand in these sentences from that page

"providing enterprise production binaries would create expectations which could not be fulfilled by volunteer-based support."

and

"more than 10 concurrent documents and/or more than 20 connections - LibreOffice Online will display a prominent "not supported" warning and a link to this page, while continuing to function."

because you seem to be implying that:
-they are limiting functionality (they are not)
-they have secret code where this functionality is enabled (they don't)
-the "enterprise code" is different from the "end user code" (there is no such "enterprise code")

[pal666]

How about we call the open-source version "LibreOffice". And the "enterprise versions of the office suite with paid support or the like" can be called "LibreOffice Non-free". Catchy huh?

1) what makes you think it will be non-free?
2) shouldn't then free version be called "openoffice free"? (hint: it should, otherwise users will confuse it with shortened form of "... nonfree")

It is all down to this basically: https://www.libreoffice.org/download...office-online/

what's wrong with it? it's source code which you have to download and host. if you don't like warning - edit it away ffs

[wswartzendruber]

does it permit it only after subj announcement, or it was always permitted and nothing had changed?

It's always permitted for MPL-2.0 software. You don't have to seek the consent of the project to do so.

[thedukesd]

In theory a good thing.

But did they fixed the problems with substract they had? Problems that were not to be found in Open Office for example.
(substract done between 2 integers with result not being integer in some cases; when i have to use ROUND to get proper results something is really really wrong...)
Don't get me wrong but if you want to target enterprise area you need to give proper math results with default settings.

For years such bug reports have been closed without fixing the problem (suggesting workarounds like use round is not fixing the problem (I even read in the bug closing message that if you want proper results you shouldn't use Calc, sorry to say but then what's the point to even develop Calc?!?))...

No need to explain me why such bugs happen. Those bugs should be fixed. If Calc is unable to provide proper results for basic math operations then sorry to say this but Calc becomes unreliable and unreliable = useless if we are talking about math like in this case.
The one from enterprise that takes the decisions doesn't care about why it happens like that, he/she wants proper results not wrong results...

Let's say an enterprise decides to use it and well use Calc for payments (because they want to go cheap). After first month the errors in Calc cause total chaos (checks ending up not maching because of the math errors in Calc). Do you think they will ever think about using Libre Office again?

Even an result like 1E-4 provided by default it's not good for enterprise area...

If you want people to take you serious you need to provide quality, not excuses why the quality sucks...