Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Marco,

see below.

On 09/01/2022 17:05, Marco Marinello wrote:
Based on this two quotes, I’d like to make a counterproposal for the
online project:
     1. Since not only Collabora-affiliated developers but almost
everybody that was previously involved in development of Online moved on
Github, contributing to Collabora’s repo, TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online.
I don't think TDF can and should endorse or promote third party products as I think you proposed.

Collabora made the choice of moving what was LOOL away from TDF infrastructure and made a considerable effort to remove as much as possible the references to the fact that it was a shared project (removing "This file is part of the LibreOffice project", renaming variables from LOOL to COOL, etc.).

Unfortunately what is in that GitHub repository is not LOOL any more so, IMHO, it has little to do with TDF now.
2. Provide stable libreoffice-branded builds (on a nightly/weekly
basis) of LibreOffice Online on the Docker HUB (possibly also DEBs/RPMs)
starting from the Collabora repository. This can either be done
internally by TDF or tendered.
True, we could even backport the lot and rebrand it but I believe TDF should lead by example by confirming that, while it would be only fair for the other party to actually deliver their side of the agreement, we don't want to damage any valuable member of the ecosystem by cloning their product as it is.

As said in other threads, negotiations for a mutually beneficial agreement were ongoing before they decided to go their own way and it's up to them to recognise that their actions went against what TDF and the LibreOffice community stand for and eventually come back to the negotiation table.

If Collabora decides to backport to TDF's LOOL repository or agrees that it's fair for TDF or external partners to do it then we could consider it.

     3. Update the documentation at TDF’s wiki. As above, internally
done, volunteered or tendered.

Before updating the documentations we should know in relation to what, the outdated LOOL we have in the repository or a product that is not LOOL any more?

     4. Grant, as already happens e.g. for Play Store / Windows app
store, the permission to release the builds with the “LibreOffice
Online” trademark to companies of the ecosystem that ask for that.
I'm not fully sure about it as it may lead to the same difficult situation we have now with LOOL.

If companies of the ecosystem would like to contribute to LOOL hosted by TDF this time it should be done under a clear agreement, the one also proposed for the "de-atticisation" process, so that the LibreOffice community will also benefit from it.

If they should be allowed to use the "LibreOffice Online" name is something to discuss as I think all members of the ecosystem should find ways to differentiate themselves in terms of brand and services they provide. Then we could evaluate if they could use the LibreOffice Technology brand while they use LibreOffice projects hosted by TDF to which they actively contribute.

This 4 bullet points would allow, at least in my opinion, TDF to
acknowledge Online as “still part of the LibreOffice ecosystem” and
continue with his distribution/marketing, in order to build a real
market surrounding LOOL.

I believe it's clear to most that LibreOffice Online is the original project hosted by TDF which should have led to a platform freely usable by anyone under.

The issue now is how to bring it back to a state where people can actually use it.

Let's also keep in mind that while you can create Marco's Office that anyone can download and use, LOOL needs a more complex setup. I believe that ownCloud, NextCloud and others would have accepted to add LOOL by TDF as a free community option to their marketplace to make it easier for non IT specialists to use but otherwise it is not that simple to deliver to the users.

All the best,
Maybe others from our community have other ideas and comments for these proposals?



Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.