6 ms·

Why do you think so? It's not clear that they could have known this would not be sustainable at the time, and I don't see how the hot potato staying with Oracl

Why do you think so? It's not clear that they could have known this would not be sustainable at the time, and I don't see how the hot potato staying with Oracle would have been a better option.

JulianMorrison 10y ago
It was immediately obvious at the time, I remember it as such. The devs jumped ship to LibreOffice. All Oracle was left with was a brand and a moribund codebase, and for some reason Apache accepted it. Why didn't Oracle give it to LibreOffice? Because they were sore at being bypassed, it looked like. The correct thing for Apache to do would have been to say, nope mate, we don't want to be part of your childish feud, keep it, trash it, or give it to the people who are actually doing the work.
- rincebrain 10y ago
  It's not impossible that the terms Apache got it under prohibited them divesting themselves of it for some length of time. I don't recall thinking at the time this landed that it was so cut-and-dry who would end up the superior solution. In the worst case, though, would it be better for Apache to have refused holding the OOo branding, given that there was no chance it would have otherwise made it out into someone like TDF or otherwise's hands?
  - nl 10y ago
    The terms are all on the mailing list.
    - JulianMorrison 10y ago
      "On the mailing list" is like "in China". It may be accurate but it hardly narrows the search.
      - fluidcruft 10y ago
        It's also not offlist in some backroom fogged with cigar smoke and whiskey aromatics.
- jimjag 10y ago
  If Apache had not accepted it, Oracle was NOT going to donate it to TDF. Instead, Oracle would simply have shuttered it, or sold it to IBM. There was no workable plan ever that would have resulted in the OO code going to TDF. Even if AOO had never done a single release, LO still benefited enormously from OO going to Apache, since once at Apache, there was known and public IP provenance, AND the code was relicensed to ALv2. This allowed LO to inherit that provenance, relicense their stuff on AOO as needed, and close what had been a possible nasty IP hole.
  - sveredov 10y ago
    The Apache Foundation could simply have accepted the OpenOffice.org codebase+trademarks from Oracle, then donate to LibreOffice. But they did not do so. The Apache Foundation does not have experience with software that end-users use. They have experience with server software. That was their undoing.
    - rectang 10y ago
      At the time of the donation, The Document Foundation had an (understandably) antagonistic relationship with Oracle and legal foundations which were firming up but not yet solid. The assets were not going to TDF from Oracle directly. In accepting the proposal for a new Apache OpenOffice project, the ASF accepted not only the assets from Oracle but also a community, distinct from the LibreOffice community, that wanted to work with those assets. That community had to be given a chance. Without all those things, the deal could not have been completed.
      - ISV_Damocles 10y ago
        What community? The only community around OpenOffice.org were the Sun/Oracle devs + the Go-OO devs getting it to work on Linux. The Go-OO devs forked it into LibreOffice and then Oracle shuttered their own work and reassigned their devs to other projects. Only a tiny handful of devs not part of Go-OO remained, and they had not been instrumental in actually maintaining the codebase as these other two groups had. There was no community around Apache OpenOffice.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Just getting the code-base released under the ALv2 was a win for the world at large. Even if we never pushed out a single release, at least the code is out there now, under a permissive license, where anybody can use it. That alone makes the whole exercise worthwhile, no matter what happens next.
DannyB2 10y ago
It was a gift from Oracle, so it should have been immediately obvious that it would turn into a gigantic pooch screw. It was clear developers were going to flee whether Oracle kept it, or whether Oracle gave it away. It was toxic coming from Oracle, just as if it had been a 'gift' from Microsoft. (PowerShell on Linux. Need .NET on Linux. Clippy on Linux: it looks like you're trying to get useful work done. Would you like me to help you install Windows 10 on your Linux PC? If you would like Windows 10 installed, then click Yes, or click No, or click Cancel, or click the X in the title bar, or pull the power cord out of the electrical socket to have Windows 10 conveniently installed for you on the next reboot.)
- hiddenkrypt 10y ago
  Honestly I'd trust MS code on my linux box over anything Oracle puts out.
- the_duke 10y ago
  OT: I think you're wrong there. IMO MS realized that Windows Mobile is doomed, people (especially under 20) use tablets and phones more and more instead of their desktops (the exception is work, obviously), and in the server market, they have very harsh competition from Linux. They will be in trouble in the medium term. So the sensible thing to do is to broaden their appeal to different platforms. A smart and sensible move. To be commended.
davidgerard 10y ago
Everyone at the time told them what would happen, and then it did; so yes, they could have known, because all this was predicted. It turns out single-vendor projects at Apache work out this way, particularly when the single vendor is IBM. In fact, this had all just occurred with Apache Harmony (their Java clone, which Android's Dalvik was based on), which was going great guns until IBM pulled out, leaving a ghost town. This was all foretold by people who'd seen what had literally just happened.

Why do you think so? It's not clear that they could have known this would not be sustainable at the time, and I don't see how the hot potato staying with Oracle would have been a better option.

JulianMorrison 10y ago

It was immediately obvious at the time, I remember it as such. The devs jumped ship to LibreOffice. All Oracle was left with was a brand and a moribund codebase, and for some reason Apache accepted it. Why didn't Oracle give it to LibreOffice? Because they were sore at being bypassed, it looked like. The correct thing for Apache to do would have been to say, nope mate, we don't want to be part of your childish feud, keep it, trash it, or give it to the people who are actually doing the work.

rincebrain 10y ago
It's not impossible that the terms Apache got it under prohibited them divesting themselves of it for some length of time. I don't recall thinking at the time this landed that it was so cut-and-dry who would end up the superior solution. In the worst case, though, would it be better for Apache to have refused holding the OOo branding, given that there was no chance it would have otherwise made it out into someone like TDF or otherwise's hands?
- nl 10y ago
  The terms are all on the mailing list.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    "On the mailing list" is like "in China". It may be accurate but it hardly narrows the search.
    - fluidcruft 10y ago
      It's also not offlist in some backroom fogged with cigar smoke and whiskey aromatics.
jimjag 10y ago
If Apache had not accepted it, Oracle was NOT going to donate it to TDF. Instead, Oracle would simply have shuttered it, or sold it to IBM. There was no workable plan ever that would have resulted in the OO code going to TDF. Even if AOO had never done a single release, LO still benefited enormously from OO going to Apache, since once at Apache, there was known and public IP provenance, AND the code was relicensed to ALv2. This allowed LO to inherit that provenance, relicense their stuff on AOO as needed, and close what had been a possible nasty IP hole.
- sveredov 10y ago
  The Apache Foundation could simply have accepted the OpenOffice.org codebase+trademarks from Oracle, then donate to LibreOffice. But they did not do so. The Apache Foundation does not have experience with software that end-users use. They have experience with server software. That was their undoing.
  - rectang 10y ago
    At the time of the donation, The Document Foundation had an (understandably) antagonistic relationship with Oracle and legal foundations which were firming up but not yet solid. The assets were not going to TDF from Oracle directly. In accepting the proposal for a new Apache OpenOffice project, the ASF accepted not only the assets from Oracle but also a community, distinct from the LibreOffice community, that wanted to work with those assets. That community had to be given a chance. Without all those things, the deal could not have been completed.
    - ISV_Damocles 10y ago
      What community? The only community around OpenOffice.org were the Sun/Oracle devs + the Go-OO devs getting it to work on Linux. The Go-OO devs forked it into LibreOffice and then Oracle shuttered their own work and reassigned their devs to other projects. Only a tiny handful of devs not part of Go-OO remained, and they had not been instrumental in actually maintaining the codebase as these other two groups had. There was no community around Apache OpenOffice.
mindcrime 10y ago
Just getting the code-base released under the ALv2 was a win for the world at large. Even if we never pushed out a single release, at least the code is out there now, under a permissive license, where anybody can use it. That alone makes the whole exercise worthwhile, no matter what happens next.

DannyB2 10y ago

It was a gift from Oracle, so it should have been immediately obvious that it would turn into a gigantic pooch screw. It was clear developers were going to flee whether Oracle kept it, or whether Oracle gave it away. It was toxic coming from Oracle, just as if it had been a 'gift' from Microsoft. (PowerShell on Linux. Need .NET on Linux. Clippy on Linux: it looks like you're trying to get useful work done. Would you like me to help you install Windows 10 on your Linux PC? If you would like Windows 10 installed, then click Yes, or click No, or click Cancel, or click the X in the title bar, or pull the power cord out of the electrical socket to have Windows 10 conveniently installed for you on the next reboot.)

hiddenkrypt 10y ago
Honestly I'd trust MS code on my linux box over anything Oracle puts out.
the_duke 10y ago
OT: I think you're wrong there. IMO MS realized that Windows Mobile is doomed, people (especially under 20) use tablets and phones more and more instead of their desktops (the exception is work, obviously), and in the server market, they have very harsh competition from Linux. They will be in trouble in the medium term. So the sensible thing to do is to broaden their appeal to different platforms. A smart and sensible move. To be commended.

davidgerard 10y ago

Everyone at the time told them what would happen, and then it did; so yes, they could have known, because all this was predicted. It turns out single-vendor projects at Apache work out this way, particularly when the single vendor is IBM. In fact, this had all just occurred with Apache Harmony (their Java clone, which Android's Dalvik was based on), which was going great guns until IBM pulled out, leaving a ghost town. This was all foretold by people who'd seen what had literally just happened.