5 ms·

"End users play no role any more? Good luck with that." In what parallel universe do you get that conclusion from that thread?

by jimjag 10y ago

okket 10y ago
My last remark was too snarky and out of context, I am sorry. You want both projects to merge again with OO being the 'core' and LO the 'user interface'? Sounds intriguing, but are both code bases still compatible enough for that? Would this not be more effort than gain? What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed by actual end-user implementations. (Quote from your email)
- jimjag 10y ago
  I didn't say "merge". Being a library or framework which can be consumed, either in whole or in part, by another entity is in no way a "merge".
  - okket 10y ago
    Why should LO have an interest to switch to an OO core/library? Just to gain the OO name back and be present on the website? Tough deal. Also, I still think the code bases are too different by now [1] and there is little to gain. Without at at least one 'consumer'/UI (which you do not want or cannot provide) there is little point in developing an OO core/library, or is it? Which leads to my snarky comment about end-users and their role... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12413218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12413218
    - jimjag 10y ago
      The Open Office eco-system is larger, by far, than LO and AOO. Maybe LO may not benefit at all from a permissive licensed core (although it certainly has benefited from it, as noted elsewhere), but certainly other OO implementations might. We have seen, and even the FSF admits it, that open standards do best with permissive licensed implementations. So if you want wide adoption of open standards, a permissive license is likely better. The world is not just LO or AOO. After all, the enemy, so-to-speak, is this proprietary s/w called MSO...
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        Define "ecosystem"?
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      Actually, I'd love to see the VCL be turned into a standalone library :-)
- CopperWing 10y ago
  OpenOffice and LibreOffice are already "merged". In fact in the past years, after the fork, LibreOffice developers regularly tracked OpenOffice source code repository and merged all the useful changes they could find, by either picking the original code or re-implementing it their own way. In addition to that they also completely overhauled and simplified the build system, removed tons of dead code and translated German comments which where there since StarOffice, replaced Java components with equivalent ones written in C/C++, are in the process of switching from GTK2 to GTK3 (mandatory to get Wayland support in Linux), etc. Doing so they made the LibreOffice source code base sustainable on the long term and lowered the difficulty entry level for new contributors, while apparently OpenOffice buildbots are not even able to rebuild their software since last year... The only useful asset which remains to OpenOffice is the trademark.
  - jimjag 10y ago
    "In fact in the past years, after the fork, LibreOffice developers regularly tracked OpenOffice source code repository and merged all the useful changes they could find, by either picking the original code or re-implementing it their own way." And therein lies the problem... AOO was simply consumed. There was no quid-pro-quo where these were then donated back to AOO. Of course, the ALv2 does not require that, and so LO was perfectly within their right to not donate back. But it also seems somewhat "shady", and not the kind of behavior one would expect of a fellow FOSS project, but more like a corporate FOSS bottom feeder. So development was basically all single stream... what was useful was used but nothing was given back. I wish people would recall this when they mention how "arrogant" Apache is, or how Apache acted in bad faith and stuff like that or that Apache wanted to "control everything". Certainly if a single, unified OO eco-system was important to LO/TDF, they had opportunities to help make that happen. Let's at least be honest here.
    - davidgerard 10y ago
      If only you could put it under a license that said "permissive, except those guys". What you've written there is a wish for something that works like copyleft.
    - 10y ago

"End users play no role any more? Good luck with that." In what parallel universe do you get that conclusion from that thread?

by jimjag 10y ago

"End users play no role any more? Good luck with that." In what parallel universe do you get that conclusion from that thread?

okket 10y ago

My last remark was too snarky and out of context, I am sorry. You want both projects to merge again with OO being the 'core' and LO the 'user interface'? Sounds intriguing, but are both code bases still compatible enough for that? Would this not be more effort than gain? What is obvious is that the AOO project cannot support, at the present time, being an end-user focused effort. I would suggest we focus on not being one, but instead being a framework or library that can be consumed by actual end-user implementations. (Quote from your email)

jimjag 10y ago
I didn't say "merge". Being a library or framework which can be consumed, either in whole or in part, by another entity is in no way a "merge".
- okket 10y ago
  Why should LO have an interest to switch to an OO core/library? Just to gain the OO name back and be present on the website? Tough deal. Also, I still think the code bases are too different by now [1] and there is little to gain. Without at at least one 'consumer'/UI (which you do not want or cannot provide) there is little point in developing an OO core/library, or is it? Which leads to my snarky comment about end-users and their role... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12413218 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12413218
  - jimjag 10y ago
    The Open Office eco-system is larger, by far, than LO and AOO. Maybe LO may not benefit at all from a permissive licensed core (although it certainly has benefited from it, as noted elsewhere), but certainly other OO implementations might. We have seen, and even the FSF admits it, that open standards do best with permissive licensed implementations. So if you want wide adoption of open standards, a permissive license is likely better. The world is not just LO or AOO. After all, the enemy, so-to-speak, is this proprietary s/w called MSO...
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      Define "ecosystem"?
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    Actually, I'd love to see the VCL be turned into a standalone library :-)
CopperWing 10y ago
OpenOffice and LibreOffice are already "merged". In fact in the past years, after the fork, LibreOffice developers regularly tracked OpenOffice source code repository and merged all the useful changes they could find, by either picking the original code or re-implementing it their own way. In addition to that they also completely overhauled and simplified the build system, removed tons of dead code and translated German comments which where there since StarOffice, replaced Java components with equivalent ones written in C/C++, are in the process of switching from GTK2 to GTK3 (mandatory to get Wayland support in Linux), etc. Doing so they made the LibreOffice source code base sustainable on the long term and lowered the difficulty entry level for new contributors, while apparently OpenOffice buildbots are not even able to rebuild their software since last year... The only useful asset which remains to OpenOffice is the trademark.
- jimjag 10y ago
  "In fact in the past years, after the fork, LibreOffice developers regularly tracked OpenOffice source code repository and merged all the useful changes they could find, by either picking the original code or re-implementing it their own way." And therein lies the problem... AOO was simply consumed. There was no quid-pro-quo where these were then donated back to AOO. Of course, the ALv2 does not require that, and so LO was perfectly within their right to not donate back. But it also seems somewhat "shady", and not the kind of behavior one would expect of a fellow FOSS project, but more like a corporate FOSS bottom feeder. So development was basically all single stream... what was useful was used but nothing was given back. I wish people would recall this when they mention how "arrogant" Apache is, or how Apache acted in bad faith and stuff like that or that Apache wanted to "control everything". Certainly if a single, unified OO eco-system was important to LO/TDF, they had opportunities to help make that happen. Let's at least be honest here.
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    If only you could put it under a license that said "permissive, except those guys". What you've written there is a wish for something that works like copyleft.
  - 10y ago