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


Hi Andreas, Paolo, all

El 23 de junio de 2022 1:44:39 p. m. GMT-03:00, Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> escribió:
Hi Paolo, all,

my work on this topic is an offer to the LibreOffice community. I had to
put some work in the update of the source code because a commercial free
software company made some name changes in the source code of their fork
to make it more difficult for the LibreOffice community.
That is a behavior I'd not expect from a good citizen of a free software
community. And if I look over the fence into another open source
community they work more collaboratively and don't raise such barrier.
But the difference may be that there is not only one big player in the
room and more diversity in the development community (and among the free
software companies).

Have to say Thank You for your work and also for sharing those serious issues.
I do agree with your take about needing a more diverse development community. That idea was raised 
in the last term and received a "non-coders can't talk" almost inmediately, glad to know people 
doesn't see pink elephants flying.

I'm curious if other want join me in my efforts and like to share some
ideas how to proceed LOOL further.
In my opinion the online version with collaboration features is a
necessary development line for the future of LibreOffice and its
community. If TDF drop this line it will decline the importance of
LibreOffice and its community further (with appropriate consequences
e.g. in donations).


The pandemic placed great emphasis on the need for an alternative to proprietary tools. And TDF 
should not be left out.

Regards,
Andreas
 
Am 23.06.22 um 17:09 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
Hi Andreas,

thank you for letting us know that you are working on it.

Ideally it would be great to have a few developers working on it,
especially to fix known security issues, and sufficient activity to
make it viable.

IMO, an open repo will attract several people from all around the world.

It is true that LOOL has been in a kind of limbo. The repository has
been frozen "temporarily" but it kind of became a permanent situation.

In your opinion, would reopening the repository for 12 months provide
enough time for a community to form around it?

It would require warnings until all the security bugs have been fixed
and that it might not be well maintained until we see constant and
sufficient activity but it could be an option to make it up for the
longer than expected temporary freeze of the repository.

If after 12 months we don't see much activity then we could be certain
that the community is not really interested in working on LOOL.

The community will certainly show their love & passion for LO.

It would be great to know if others have other
takes/options/alternatives on this subject.

Every organization needs a tool that provides solidity while responding to daily needs, but above 
all that allows it to collaborate in its development without any limitations or impediments. So, do 
you know any organization commited to eliminate the digital divide in society by giving everyone 
access to office productivity tools free of charge, to enable them to participate as full 
citizens???

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Context


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.