Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Has A New Sidebar

[Awesomeness]

If it's such a success, then how come the transition was announced years ago

As usual you are making things up.

and they still haven't completed it?

They have.

Furthermore, why are they undermining their own effort by implimenting Java components such as the sidebar from Lotus Symphony?

The sidebar is not written in Java.

[quikee]

Furthermore, why are they undermining their own effort by implimenting Java components such as the sidebar from Lotus Symphony?

The new sidebar is not implemented in Java, it is extended from the old sidebar from impress by IBM for Symphony (clearly stated in http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Sidebar). Also Symphony code that was written in Java was not donated to Apache (clearly stated in http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Symphony).

[intellivision]

Stupid as ever:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/vcl/source/components/factory.cxx

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/starmath/source/mathmlexport.cxx

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/store/source/storbase.cxx

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …

If it's such a success, then how come the transition was announced years ago and they still haven't completed it?
Furthermore, why are they undermining their own effort by implimenting Java components such as the sidebar from Lotus Symphony?

[Awesomeness]

So until Apache OpenOffice merged the code regarding Symphony, the code couldn't be used by LibreOffice. You're totally ignoring this, just focussing on LibreOffice.

You're complaining about the license of LibreOffice, while Apache OpenOffice keeping everything under just copyright (making it impossible to be used by anyone) is just fine.

I ignore nothing.
Your attempt to spin the story against Apache is just pathetic.
Yes, the code was proprietary for a while during a transition period but isn't it a fact that TODAY ? after Apache's legal team checked the code file by file ? that it's now under Apache License for everyone as part of OO 4.0, including LibreOffice?
Do you deny that fact?

Suggest to provide references for those common hostile actions. As you claim these are common, please show 3.

Why three? I already showed two. You OTOH could just point at a short transition period of which it was clear from the beginning that it was a transition period ? a transition period long over, ever since the code landed in OpenOffice 4.0's SVN development branch.
TDF people are pretty blunt about their hostility when they feel to talk in private, such as their own mailing lists. There it's not subtle hostility like releasing LO 4.0 ahead of OO 4.0 with zero new features that justify a major revision, just to beat OO at version numbering?

Oh, and just to make it clear again: I'm not a OO/Apache fanboy. I still think that KDE's Calligra has the superior technology and that both OO's and LO's technology is rotting meat. A OO/Apache fanboy would never say that.
I'm merely an outside observer who's interested to see how both projects develop and who occasionally crawls through both projects' mailing list archives to inform himself.

[Awesomeness]

Planning, but not succeeding.

Stupid as ever:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/vcl/source/components/factory.cxx

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/starmath/source/mathmlexport.cxx

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/store/source/storbase.cxx

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[a user]

Yeah yeah the typical bullshit about "digital preservation" as if you're a public library collecting shit around the world for decades.
Everyone still using StarOffice era shit deserves problems. Like the IE6 idiots who think their browser should be supported for as long as there are users.

there is no more bullshit than in this post.

we are just alking about a couple of years at most. and it is something totally different to keep the WEB compatible to an old browser than a dokument editor compatible to some years old document format where many people for sure still have some important documents in this format.

you want people to convert every few years all their documents? where is the analogy with the ie6? updating a browser causes no loss for one.

what ignorance!

[intellivision]

LibreOffice was planning to rebase everything on the Apache OpenOffice, thereby allowing the MPL to be used.

Planning, but not succeeding. The fact that they have had this planned for literally years shows that there's some sort of internal conflict about this, if not that at least a valid technical reason.
So Libreoffice is still under a viral license, and they're importing MORE Java components to reduce AO's unique features, running contrary to the goals of its own project.

Now, tell me how that isn't spiteful, to compromise one's prioritised goals in order to better a competitor.

[bkor]

I'll also mention that due to the way Libreoffice is licensed, all components have to be released under the LGPLv3 since it constitutes a 'greater work' consisting of both the new MPL code and the old LGPL OO.o code. And the LGPL is copyleft, or if you prefer, 'hostile', if there can ever be such a thing as a hostile license.

LibreOffice was planning to rebase everything on the Apache OpenOffice, thereby allowing the MPL to be used.

[intellivision]

So until Apache OpenOffice merged the code regarding Symphony, the code couldn't be used by LibreOffice. You're totally ignoring this, just focussing on LibreOffice.

You're complaining about the license of LibreOffice, while Apache OpenOffice keeping everything under just copyright (making it impossible to be used by anyone) is just fine.

Suggest to provide references for those common hostile actions. As you claim these are common, please show 3.

It was a code grant, IBM signed an agreement that Apache would be able to use Symphony code in its product, but not release it freely on its own right.
Yes, it might sound unfair, but consider how lucky we are to get any of this code what so ever.
I also find it strange that Libreoffice is on a mission to remove all Java components, yet they add more Java components such as the sidebar just so that Openoffice doesn't have any unique features.

I'll also mention that due to the way Libreoffice is licensed, all components have to be released under the LGPLv3 since it constitutes a 'greater work' consisting of both the new MPL code and the old LGPL OO.o code. And the LGPL is copyleft, or if you prefer, 'hostile', if there can ever be such a thing as a hostile license.

[bkor]

I know the article and I know the comments. It was explained repeatedly that the code was contributed in standard Apache fashion through a Grant.
And as I wrote: This was just one case. TDF ensuring via its licensing terms that code transfer is a one way street from Apache to TDF is another.
Hostile actions of TDF against OpenOffice are common.

So until Apache OpenOffice merged the code regarding Symphony, the code couldn't be used by LibreOffice. You're totally ignoring this, just focussing on LibreOffice.

You're complaining about the license of LibreOffice, while Apache OpenOffice keeping everything under just copyright (making it impossible to be used by anyone) is just fine.

Suggest to provide references for those common hostile actions. As you claim these are common, please show 3.