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

Replying from the smartphone.

The LibreOffice Technology umbrella brand has been developed to group all products based on the 
LibreOffice transactional engine, independently from their origin and from details which are 
irrelevant for the end user such as file's headers.

Prohibiting its use would be against the spirit and the objectives of the marketing plan, and would 
kill it forever (the label Community has already killed half of it, by providing a wrong message to 
the project stakeholders).

Best regards, Italo

25 Jun 2022 15:41:03 Paolo Vecchi <>:

Hi Laszlo,

thanks for your engagement. Just a few notes as I've been directly involved in proposing to get 
the community to be more involved with LOOL and to enjoy it's use while trying to agree with the 
major code contributor a mutually beneficial way to do it.

On 24/06/2022 17:27, wrote:

We need not only a security warning, but clear information that the
recommended versions of LOOL are still CODE and Collabora Online (LibreOffice Technology (TM)).

I respectfully disagree.

We can surely promote the fact that there are members of the ecosystem that provide support and 
other services that TDF does not provide for LibreOffice Community on the desktop but then that's 

As we are not, yet, delivering to our community LOOL Community we don't have a supported edition 
to recommend. CODE and Collabora Online are just other products from a member of the ecosystem 
that at present have no TDF's hosted community version to refer to.

So at the end we cannot recommend an enterprise version of something we do not publish.

A few months ago my corporate client wasted time and money because they didn't notice on the
TDF site that LOOL is not actively developed.

It was a very unfortunate outcome and but it's a long time that we promote the fact that 
corporate clients should seek adequate support services.

LOOL has been frozen, by a split board vote, due to the unilateral decision of the major code 
contributor to fork and not contribute back.

You will find in the board-discuss archives several threads that try to explain how hard the 
board worked to provide more support to members of the ecosystem and to find a mutually 
beneficial agreement but once we made good our side the agreement the other side just walked out.

Thanks to the helpfulness of employees of
Collabora Productivity, now they can test its fork with an up-to-date LibreOffice in their 
intranet, and
started to contribute back to CODE (they have already been one of the biggest contributors
of LibreOffice Desktop).

It is good that your corporate client can enjoy the benefits of the combined efforts in terms of 
code and lots of contributions from TDF and the wider community.

Your corporate client made anyway the right choice as, unless they have a very capable team able 
to fix bugs and contribute back to a community project as LOOL was, then they should get support 
from other parties.

Why do we need to emphasize that CODE/Collabora Online are the recommended versions (by TDF, too:

Thank you for pointing to that page that has been heavily edited since last time I looked at it.

It now seems to be an advertising page for products for which TDF doesn't have a community 
counterpart so I wonder if those changes shouldn't be reverted.

Not only because LOOL was the idea and for the most part, product of Collabora Productivity,
but because the original core LOOL developers still work for Collabora in the spirit of the
free software: CODE is the only actively developed version of LOOL, and this is the only 
version which contributes back to LibreOffice actively.

LOOL has been "temporarily" frozen for a long time so or we take a decision to bring it back to 
life, following suggestions that arrived in the past few days, or there is no LOOL and as a 
consequence no alternatives to point to.

OSSII seems to show that it is possible to have both a commercial and a community version, a bit 
of a shame that we couldn't find an agreement with a major contributor of LOOL. If it will be 
possible to create clear rules for cooperation, which might also include synergies to improve CJK 
handling, then that could be a commercial offering available for enterprise users. Needs more 

Andreas options also requires investigation as it seems to involve backporting of an Open Source 
project managed by a commercial provider. It would be great to see if that commercial provider is 
also willing to cooperate under clear rules so that we can refer back to their products for 
enterprise users.

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.

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

I'm sure, the potential corporate contributors will prefer CODE/Collabora Online, so it's really 
important to inform them (and every LibreOffice users) correctly, like in

Corporate contributors surely prefer to have their projects/products/services promoted, which TDF 
does for version that it hosts, but CODE/COOL do not relate to LOOL any more so it should be up 
to them to market their own products and services.

Until we revive LOOL and we (re)create a community around it we should not point to commercial 
versions of it.

As CODE/Collabora Online are LibreOffice Technology (TM), and for the healthy long-term 
LibreOffice development, I would like to see more contribution with Collabora Productivity.

We should actually evaluate if those product should use the "LibreOffice Technology" branding.

When Collabora Productivity moved LOOL's code from TDF's repositories to GitHub the first thing 
that it has done was to remove the header "This file is part of the LibreOffice project" from all 
the files.

Subsequently even the variables names have been renamed from LOOL to COOL.

This, and other changes, show the intention of removing any indication that the product COOL 
actually originated from LOOL and every indication that the project was a result of a common 
effort which included TDF and the wider community.

In my opinion, as LOOL was, CODE is still the key for the survival of LibreOffice.

CODE is now a product fully managed by a commercial contributor that decided to sever all links 
from TDF in regards to that product so unless they finally agree to join forces again and 
backport the code to LOOL there is nothing much we can do about their product.

On-line drafting tools are surely useful for many uses and users but there are still billions of 
people that cannot/do not want to rely on Cloud services to edit their documents so LibreOffice 
desktop with lots more features and better usability will still be very much relevant for many 
years to come.

LOOL, and products based on it, is just one of the ways to offer on-line collaborative editing so 
we may also want to investigate other ways to make LibreOffice available on-line.

In the spirit of a successful free software contribution, respecting the decision of Collabora 
Productivity, TDF must help CODE development, as much as possible, for the sake of LibreOffice!

Respect is a two way street, TDF kept its promises but the other party decided to fork regardless.

TDF invests in other Open Source software as it's the right thing to do and we could evaluate 
joint investments if we had a LOOL to give to our community but this time the rules of engagement 
should be very clear so that the third party does not walk away after having benefited from TDF's 
and our community's investments.

As a first step, we shouldn't hijack future CODE users and as described above, future (and 
recent) LibreOffice users and contributors with false hopes and misleading information.

When I accused people of creating false hopes and providing misleading information in regards to 
LOOL, that pushed me to propose to have a properly structured offering in collaboration with the 
major code contributor, I have done it with lots of supporting evidence.

You will find all the evidence in the board-discuss archives, in public board meeting minutes 
and, as now you are a board member and you should take decisions based on objective data, in 
board email exchanges that I'm very happy to share with you.

I do understand that you are a new member of the board and if you check your emails you will 
notice that one of my first recommendations was not to limit your choices on what you have been 
told but to verify things by looking for the relevant objective data or you risk being mislead by 
narratives that could be slightly biased.

Best regards,





On 21/06/2022 21:14, Andreas Mantke wrote:
Hi all,

only a short info that I'm currently working on an update of the LOOL
source code with the latest patches. Because I have an issue with my
newly bought hardware I had to migrate my environment (etc.) to another
hardware (will need some hours of spare time). Thus I was not able to
finish my work during this week.

If someone wants to join me, feel free to send me an email.
Once the necessary bits are done, I'll come back and try to make a
proposal for the further process to get LOOL back under the TDF umbrella.


Am 21.06.22 um 14:15 schrieb Paolo Vecchi:
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

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 archived.




-- ## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:

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

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.