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

Hi Paolo, all,

no objections. I'd Prüfer that too. But we should make developer life mouch more easy and also 
implement tools like the workflows available on github.


Am 24. Juni 2022 12:37:54 MESZ schrieb Paolo Vecchi <>:
Hi Andreas,

it's great to see this types of cooperation offers.

I might be biased but I would prefer to see the project on TDF's infrastructure and covered by the 
appropriate agreements so that we can ensure we invest on a project that will clearly provide long 
term benefits for the wider community.



On 24/06/2022 12:23, Andreas Mantke wrote:
Hi Paolo, Franklin, all,

it would be great, if we could work together on a process to merge both branches together and 
get the community versions in sync. I think this could be done most easy on Github.


Am 24. Juni 2022 11:29:16 MESZ schrieb Paolo Vecchi <>:

    Hi Franklin,

    thanks for the great proposal.

    As the LOOL archival discussion is planned for Monday I'll ask the
    board to modify the agenda to start discussing your' and Andreas'

    There is a lot that needs to be evaluated with the community to
    see if and in which way we can make LOOL available for the
    community again.



    On 24/06/2022 06:37, Franklin Weng wrote:


    Here I have a proposal: to have LOOL respository sync to another
    LOOL-derived suite:

    OxOOL is developed by OSSII in Taiwan, derived from LOOL.  It has
    commercial version, which is several versions advanced to
    community version, while the community version is also open
    sourced.  Currently National Development Council Taiwan, the main
    dominant unit of ODF policy in Taiwanese government, uses (forks)
    this community version into "NDCODFweb":

    which is also mainly supported by OSSII.

    Besides NDCODFWeb and some other Taiwanese government units,
    OxOOL is also used in different companies and products.  For
    example, it is integrated into ASUS cloud Omnistor Office
    (, OpenFind SecuShare
    Pro ( It is
    migrated into Pou Chen Group ( and some
    other big anonymous companies.  Also, it is deployed in UNAU
    ( ).

    OxOOL v4 will be released in a month and can be a good and useful
    base to LOOL, also good to the LibreOffice community.

    I'm not a representative of OSSII, but the GM of OSSII told me
    that they are happy to share the community version.

    In this proposal there are two ways to relive LOOL:

    1. To sync current LOOL with patches from OxOOL community v4,
    which may technically take more time and efforts.

    2. Start a new repository from OxOOL community v4, which I'll say
    that it is actually a "fast forward" from current status since
    OxOOL is also derived from LOOL, though a bit far before. It will
    be technically easier than 1., just that maybe some community
    people may feel uneasy or unhappy with this way.

    Both ways are okay for me, as long as LOOL can be relived. 
    However no matter which way, IMO TDF needs to employ in-house
    developers (independent from *any* ecosystem member) for
    rerunning LOOL.  The second option, which is my prefer option, is
    a lot easier technically and in-house developers would just need
    to (cowork with community members and OSSII to) maintain LOOL

    Features in OxOOL commercial version are mostly (customized)
    requests from customers and hence may not necessarily need to be
    backported (to community version), but the GM of OSSII also
    promised that OxOOL Commercial version functions (which they
    think good / necessary to be back ported) and bugfixes will be
    back ported to LOOL (and OxOOL community version too).

    Of course, after reliving LOOL all developers are welcomed to
    contribute to LOOL.

    Details can be discussed with OSSII.


    Paolo Vecchi 於 2022/6/21 20:15 寫道:
    Hi all,

    just a heads up in case the community would like to come up with
    proposals in regards to LibreOffice On-Line.

    As you might be aware LOOL's repository has been frozen since
    the major code contributor decided to move it to GitHub and not
    contribute back to TDF's repository.

    At the time there has been a debate about it but then nothing
    actionable seems to have been proposed by the community since then.

    Recently an ex-member of the ESC proposed to the ESC to archive
    LOOL [0] and during the following ESC meeting no concerns were
    expressed for doing so [1].

    The "Attic Policy" [2], that has been written to archive
    obsolete projects, states that the Board will need to vote on
    the archival process to confirm ESC's choice.

    It is likely that the board will need to vote on it soon so if
    the community would like to do something with LOOL there might
    be a small window of opportunity to have your preferences on
    what to do with it heard.

    If nobody comes along proposing to look after it and update if
    so that it could be brought back into an usable form for the
    community then the board might have to vote for having LOOL






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

-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

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

Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.


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.