The project fork comes as the team behind OpenOffice.org, which grew out of the Sun Microsystems StarOffice project before Sun was acquired by Oracle, set up an umbrella group called The Document Foundation to oversee development of the newly-branded software package.
The group, which a press statement claims consists of "leading independent members of the former OpenOffice.org community, including several project leads and key members of the Community Council," hasn't given up on the goodwill associated with the OpenOffice.org brand just yet, however. While LibreOffice has been chosen as an interim title, The Document Foundation is asking Oracle to donate the rights to the OpenOffice.org name to the project and become a member - though no longer a leader.
Sophie Gautier, long-time OpenOffice.org volunteer and former maintainer of the the French-speaking arm of the project, spoke for the volunteers and stated that "we believe that the Foundation is a key step for the evolution of the free office suite, as it liberates the development of the code and the evolution of the project from the constraints represented by the commercial interests of a single company".
Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation, saw the move as a positive one that could help to make the office suite easier to recommend with a clean conscience, saying, "I'm very pleased that the Document Foundation will not recommend nonfree add-ons, since they are the main freedom problem of the current OpenOffice.org."
Although the Foundation has already gained a lot of admiration and support from the industry, with Google, Novell, Canonical, Red Hat, and the Open Source Initiative all adding soundbites to the announcement, so far Oracle hasn't hinted as to whether it will be willing to cede control and cooperate on the project.
This was posted by one user who appears to be one of the contributors:[quote=", post:, topic:"]
The current way with OO being managed already results in multiple versions of OO!
(a) Official one;
( Another is by a guy from Novell called Go-OO;
© A third version for Apple Macs called NeoOffice.
(d) Another is called OxygenOffice Professional.
...and so on.
This fork is necessary for two reasons.
(1) Current management of the project automatically rejects community contributions. Hence the reason for Go-OO, NeoOffice for Mac, etc. (This is because Sun...Now Oracle, wants to preserve the code for their commercial variant: Oracle Open Office...Formerly StarOffice.)
With this community fork, we can now unify code contributions from projects like Go-OO and NeoOffice under one major project. (Notice the irony in your whiny post? You complain about another version, yet this project will unify/consolidate.)
(2) Oracle has clearly demonstrated it isn't all that open source friendly by taking legal action with Google and killing the OpenSolaris project. This fork is a pre-emptive move, so the community can continue to progress with the code regardless of what Oracle does. I thought independence and freedom were valued in Western society? But the way some people behave in this day and age; its like they want to be tied up and bent over regularly, so they have something to complain about!
Originally Posted by scawp
OpenOffice is ****, just saying.
You get what you pay for!
I hear this phrase all the time from people who continue to pay for Microsoft products. Its like they need to belittle any alternative to justify to themselves in forking out cash for every new release of MS Office.
OpenOffice does what I need.
(1) It is legal and free. (Saved me lots of money!)
(2) It supports more platforms than MS Office.
(3) It does NOT have "Genuine Advantage" nonsense.
(4) I can install as many copies as I want.
Interestingly, it also satisfies the following organisations:
* Singapores Ministry of Defence
* Bristol City Council (UK)
* Banco do Brasil
* French Gendarmerie
* Various Indian Govt branches like the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Supreme Court of India.
* Grafton-Fraser (Canadian mens wear company)
It must be doing something right.
Originally Posted by Grape Flavor
But does that apply even if those products are free and open source? Hmm.
In FOSS, multiple solutions promote natural competition such that one can explore the variety of options, while at the same time working like Nature. (Survival of the fittest...Crappy implementations aren't adopted, and thus, are archived and never used again.)
Or would you prefer bumbling around with one solution that attempts to explore one option at a time in a linear manner with each new release?
Firefox motivated Microsoft to get off their butts and work on IE. (Did you conveniently forget IE6 was left stagnant for so long? It has now resulted in a problem where businesses are stuck with it because their in-house developed software was developed in that era! This means businesses are sticking to Windows XP until they can re-do their in-house software!).
So what do you guys think?
Do you think that Oracle should give up control of the project and offer the OpenOffice.org name to The Document Foundation, or is it right to hang on to the brand it has bought from Sun and let LibreOffice live or die on its own merits?