![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
For those who haven't seen this:
Is this a case of "Where there's smoke ..."
CVAlkan schreef op 03-09-2016 13:50:
For those who haven't seen this:
Is this a case of "Where there's smoke ..."
The LibreOffice developers that split off refused to contribute code under the "Oracle" license and according to the words of Mark Shuttlworth "made their work hell". (Made the work hell of the remaining paid Oracle employees).
Since also LibreOffice was allowed to take code from ApacheOffice but not in reverse (due to it restrictive license) (LibreOffice had a license that forbade it from being given back to Apache/Oracle OpenOffice) any updates only flowed in one way and provided the doom for OpenOffice.
The short answer is, no.
Arstechnica, while being a moderately reasonable source of information,
are well known for their sensationalist headlines.
Yes, there is a situation that needs to be resolved and the folks at AOO
are publicly working hard to find the best solution.
However, it is an AOO issue, that is unlikely to have any impact on us,
so please let's not degrade ourselves by entering into a meaningless
thread of speculation, FUD, misinformation and flame wars.
Dave
Hello!
CVAlkan schreef op 03-09-2016 13:50:
For those who haven't seen this:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/09/openoffice-after-years-of-neglect-could-shut-down/Is this a case of "Where there's smoke ..."
The LibreOffice developers that split off refused to contribute code
under the "Oracle" license and according to the words of Mark
Shuttlworth "made their work hell". (Made the work hell of the
remaining paid Oracle employees).Since also LibreOffice was allowed to take code from ApacheOffice but
not in reverse (due to it restrictive license) (LibreOffice had a
license that forbade it from being given back to Apache/Oracle
OpenOffice) any updates only flowed in one way and provided the doom
for OpenOffice.
The LibreOffice software is published under the Mozilla Public License
Version 2.0... Not a particularly restrictive license.
LO License : https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses/
MPL 2.0 : https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/
In fact it's a great license to enable combining with other software.
Now, when Oracle (I used to work there) gave the OOo code to Apache,
they were really hoping to kill LO. But to their big surprise (and
contrary to all the bullshit I was given by the (at the time) head of
software strategy there), LO dit way better than OOo. OOo suffers from
many problems, from structural (Apache has taken an unreasonable amount
of time to clean up all the code - in particular licenses - but not the
actual algorithmics of the app) to project-wise (developers not adhering
to the idea, not committed to contributing enough, and as a result, new
versions comming out drop by drop, one every year and a half - when LO
has new versions every few months or more often).
So the good guys here are LO. They're doing great work. They're keeping
alive software that Oracle did its best to "not kill" (it was a
commitment from Oracle to the European Commission when they acquired
Sun)... while still doing its best to make it disappear (they are really
upset that they never found a way to make money from it, and that they
never could control the community the way thew would have wanted to -
case in point, The Document Foundation is the exact opposite of what
Oracle wanted to achieve - including limiting sponsorship amounts so
that no single entity can claim to have overwhelming financial impact to
justify imposing directions to the project).
It would be a good thing FOR EVERYBODY if Apache decided to officially
call it quits on OOo, and put out one last version that had links for
next updates to the LibreOffice web site. Of course they have too much
pride to even accept the idea of doing this, so instead, they are
leaving their users with software that is terribly outdated (last build
4.1.2 is dated October 28th, 2015, and I'll let you imagine the number
of unpatched vulnerabilities inside)... They are pathetic. And
dangerous. And dying... Apache Foundation has many much more great
projects that they are working on, and doing a great job of keeping active!
Gilles
Is this a case of "Where there's smoke ..."
Pretty much since AOo entered the Apache fold, it has had problems.
Some were major, such as no release manager for months. Some were minor,
such as an inability to produce documentation.
As far as actual retirement goes, and being kicked into the Attic goes.
That won't happen this year.
However, the following quotes from https://db.apache.org/newproject.html
apply to all Apache Projects, especially podlings:
* «Orphaned products. Products which have lost their corporate sponsor
(for whatever reason) do not make good candidates. These products will
lack a development community and won't have the support needed to
succeed under the DB umbrella»;
* «Reliance on salaried developers. DB has strong ties to the business
community. Many of our developers are encouraged by their employers to
work open source projects as part of their regular job. We feel that
this is a Good Thing, and corporations should be entitled to contribute
to open source, same as anyone else. However, we are wary of products
which rely strongly on developers who only work on open source products
when they are paid to do so. A product at DB must continue to exist
beyond the participation of individual volunteers. We believe the best
indicator of success is when developers volunteer their own time to work
open source projects.»
When AOo went into incubation at AFS, it was an orphaned project, with
an over-reliance of paid developers from IBM. When IBM pulled the plug
Apache has taken an unreasonable amount of time to clean up all the
code - in particular licenses
The initial code clean up was specifically to verify the providence of
each line of code:
* That the line of code was correctly licensed;
* That The Apache Software Foundation had the legal right to use the code;
* That The Apache Software Foundation had the moral right to use the code;
This type of code verification always takes a long time --- as in one
hour per line of code.
The net result is that if there are any legal challenges to the code,
ASF can say: "Here is the code in question, and here is our legal right
to use the code".
Two things that the code clean up did not do were:
* Identify algorithms that might infringe upon existing patents. Under
current US Patent Law, this is extremely counter-productive;
* Identify algorithms that infringe upon copyright, as defined in Oracle
v. Google, (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
2013-1021, 1022, Decided: May 9, 2014. SCOTUS 14-410 2015-06-29 Petition
Denied.){In fairness to ASF, this definition of copyright was
unexpected. IMNSHO, it was an incredibly bad decision on the part of the
court --- on a par with the Appellate Court ruling that if you buy a DVD
in Colorado, you buy the copyright for the DVD.
It would be a good thing FOR EVERYBODY if Apache decided to officially
call it quits on OOo,
Right now, there are a dozen things that AOo can do, that LibO can't do.
These are features and functions that LibO, for various reasons, has
deliberately chosen to not provide. Over time, the number of unique
functions for each program (AOo, EO, LibO, NO) to increase.
I'll let you imagine the number of unpatched vulnerabilities inside)..
The next release of AOo will fix a known security exploit. I don't know
if that is the one that is in the wild, or not.
8<-- Snipped parts that have no relevance to LibreOffice -->8
Right now, there are a dozen things that AOo can do, that LibO can't do.
jonathon
You keep repeating this claim, but never tell us what these 12 things
are. Please enlighten us.