Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 5 June 2011 10:04, e-letter <> wrote:

DF programmers should join the Apache OO committee merely to be aware
of activities in this product. LO should remain separate as a full GPL
product. Presumably, if DF members become aware of feature X becoming
imminent in apache OO, they can make a proposal for a similar feature
to be copied/improved in LO. The analogy is opera introducing tabbed
web pages in a browser and firefox later introducing the same

More separately developed ODF compliant products in the market is a
good result, just like there are numerous gnu/linux distributions for
users to choose. The proliferation of many ODF products gives powerful
confidence to users that if apache OO (any other ODF compliant
product( disappears, the user can switch to using LO. It should be
remembered that this cannot occur with m$o and this is the single most
dominant benefit of numerous ODF programs to the user. It is the
"killer reason" to use LO.

In summary, please do not merge apache OO (or any non-(L)GPL) code with LO.

I can see the logic in this argument but also think of the cost. It means
that there is going to be masses of duplication of effort in a scenario
where development resources are at a premium. For me a better practical
outcome would be for the main development effort for core code to be done on
OOo at ASF. It might be that there is never a product released, simply
develop components useful and save all the "release and distribution"
resource, putting it into development. LO and other projects build their
products on those components with as many extensions, improvements etc as
they want under their chosen license.

So whether or not this is achievable with eg LO will depend on whether the
LO steering committee do or do not agree to re-use OOo code. If they don't
there will be at least two diverging forks. Both might flourish, one or both
might die. Only time will tell. My perception is that there is less risk to
the goal of having a free and open document format through cooperation and
sharing and to me that goal is more important than any of the particular
license flavours of OOo. If it was a perfect world I would favour the GPL
for all but it isn't a perfect world.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be


Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications
The Schools ITQ +44 (0)1827 305940

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.