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

Hi Marco,

thanks for your clarifications.

On 29/06/2022 22:29, Marco Marinello wrote:
Il 27/06/22 13:31, Jan Holesovsky ha scritto:
Now the question is - does TDF want to be in a business of rebranding
other well behaving open source projects?
Yes. Specifically since a company decided to name after herself a
project that was - up to that moment - under TDFs umbrella.

I want to put it in black and white: being the most committing
contributor does not allow anyone to pick the source and move it away,
while have previously agreed to develop under a non profitable
foundation umbrella.
I suppose many read the same message and have been let to understand that it was the case.

Even Collabora's own website used to convey the same message at the time:

"Will it be hosted by The Document Foundation?
    Yes: It will be hosted by The Document Foundation, and contributed to the LibreOffice project in the normal way, as was done for the Smoose / Collabora LibreOffice Viewer for Android, in accordance with Collabora’s open-first development policy.
Who will maintain LOOL after launch?
    Collabora will maintain it alongside the LibreOffice community, and all are welcome to contribute to development."

And for years also TDF invested on it and supported it with its own staff and infrastructure together with contributions from the wider community:

"Today’s launch of the first LibreOffice application for Android pushes our community into exciting new waters. As we speak, new infrastructure is being prepared by Document Foundation Staff for documentation, translation, and bug reporting of the new app, laying the foundations for a busy future. This is just the beginning."

Looking at the communication and the promotion that LOOL had also from TDF, well before I joined the board, made me believe that LOOL should have been made available to the community and that's why I published my proposal 2 years ago:

The subsequent threads and board minutes provide a very interesting reading for those that want to understand more about what happened after I presented my proposal.

Regarding the freeze in my opinion should have never happened but at the time we didn't have a clear CoI Policy so a single vote from a what now would be considered a conflicted member of the board made that happen:

Emiliano had a very good take at the time which also explained why we haven't seen a lot of requests to contribute to LOOL up to now:

So it seems like there is more work needed to give LOOL an actual chance to restart as a proper community project under the TDF umbrella.

And - when you find out that COOL / LOOL is just the editing bit, in
other words, it does nothing without a file sync & sharing solution,
will you rebrand eg. Nextcloud or ownCloud to "LibreOffice Cloud" next?
No need to answer, I guess, since TDF is "The Document Foundation" and
not "The Cloud Foundation".

I don't think TDF should get into services provision, we promote our members of the ecosystem to do that, but I did propose at the time to have also TDF branded connectors for NextCloud, ownCloud, Univention, etc. so that users would have a choice (naturally notifying that supported/enterprise version were available from our members of the ecosystem) but unfortunately that choice has been removed from them.

All the best,




Paolo Vecchi - 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.