5 ms·

It's open source ... not free as in freedom.

Cyphase 6y ago
Can you elaborate? FYI, it looks like the code is released under the AGPL 3.
andrewshadura 6y ago
Open source is free as in freedom, see opensource.org. The problem with OnlyOffice is non-community-oriented development and the predatory licensing model where they hold all copyrights and dual-license their code AGPL+proprietary, while forbidding others do the same (since they hold the copyrights), therefore putting themselves at the centre of their universe. Compare that with the healthy community around LibreOffice where nobody holds copyrights for all of it, so the copyleft actually protects all involved parties from unfair competition and makes them cooperate for the common good. For OnlyOffice, the open source license is just a marketing trick and a source of occasional free patches.
- mindfulhack 6y ago
  I don't understand. If they offer any sort of GPL on their code, irrespective of some other license also placed on it isn't a user entitled under such AGPL to fork it as they please, where continued free (as in freedom) use and subsequent further forking can take place?
- distances 6y ago
  > Compare that with the healthy community around LibreOffice where nobody holds copyrights for all of it, so the copyleft actually protects all involved parties from unfair competition and makes them cooperate for the common good. According to the recent discussion [1] it's not all that peachy for sustainable LibreOffice development either. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23793942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23793942
- amenod 6y ago
  > The problem with OnlyOffice is non-community-oriented development and the predatory licensing model where they hold all copyrights and dual-license their code AGPL+proprietary, while forbidding others do the same (since they hold the copyrights), therefore putting themselves at the centre of their universe. > Compare that with the healthy community around LibreOffice where nobody holds copyrights for all of it, so the copyleft actually protects all involved parties from unfair competition and makes them cooperate for the common good. This is a very good point, and very well said! I agree completely - from activist point of view. It really does benefit users the most. BUT! It doesn't benefit developers and maintainers at all, which leads to the common problem of "it works for me" attitude. This is an understandable though regrettable situation. To put software to another level it takes lots of additional effort in areas which are usually not fun. Why would someone do it? LibreOffice is a great case in point. While I use it regularly, it lacks in two important areas: - 100% compatibility with MS Office - UI is ugly and in places unintuitive I can imagine that the first problem is not fun, and the second is difficult to solve with so many people involved. I don't believe LibreOffice will ever solve these two problems. Incentives matter.
  - Qub3d 6y ago
    This was mentioned in the context of Linux desktop/mobile UI, but applies to Libreoffice quite well: > Open source development can't do good user interfaces for the same reason wikipedia can't write a novel with a coherent plot. The limitations of the development model do not allow for this. The old adage "too many cooks spoil the soup" is not a warning about lack of nutrition, it's a warning that aesthetic issues do not survive committees. Peer review does not produce blockbuster movies, hit songs, or masterpiece paintings. It finds scientific facts, not beauty. From http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html#selfhost http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html#selfhost

Can you elaborate? FYI, it looks like the code is released under the AGPL 3.

Open source is free as in freedom, see opensource.org. The problem with OnlyOffice is non-community-oriented development and the predatory licensing model where they hold all copyrights and dual-license their code AGPL+proprietary, while forbidding others do the same (since they hold the copyrights), therefore putting themselves at the centre of their universe. Compare that with the healthy community around LibreOffice where nobody holds copyrights for all of it, so the copyleft actually protects all involved parties from unfair competition and makes them cooperate for the common good. For OnlyOffice, the open source license is just a marketing trick and a source of occasional free patches.

mindfulhack 6y ago
I don't understand. If they offer any sort of GPL on their code, irrespective of some other license also placed on it isn't a user entitled under such AGPL to fork it as they please, where continued free (as in freedom) use and subsequent further forking can take place?
distances 6y ago
> Compare that with the healthy community around LibreOffice where nobody holds copyrights for all of it, so the copyleft actually protects all involved parties from unfair competition and makes them cooperate for the common good. According to the recent discussion [1] it's not all that peachy for sustainable LibreOffice development either. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23793942 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23793942
amenod 6y ago
> The problem with OnlyOffice is non-community-oriented development and the predatory licensing model where they hold all copyrights and dual-license their code AGPL+proprietary, while forbidding others do the same (since they hold the copyrights), therefore putting themselves at the centre of their universe. > Compare that with the healthy community around LibreOffice where nobody holds copyrights for all of it, so the copyleft actually protects all involved parties from unfair competition and makes them cooperate for the common good. This is a very good point, and very well said! I agree completely - from activist point of view. It really does benefit users the most. BUT! It doesn't benefit developers and maintainers at all, which leads to the common problem of "it works for me" attitude. This is an understandable though regrettable situation. To put software to another level it takes lots of additional effort in areas which are usually not fun. Why would someone do it? LibreOffice is a great case in point. While I use it regularly, it lacks in two important areas: - 100% compatibility with MS Office - UI is ugly and in places unintuitive I can imagine that the first problem is not fun, and the second is difficult to solve with so many people involved. I don't believe LibreOffice will ever solve these two problems. Incentives matter.
- Qub3d 6y ago
  This was mentioned in the context of Linux desktop/mobile UI, but applies to Libreoffice quite well: > Open source development can't do good user interfaces for the same reason wikipedia can't write a novel with a coherent plot. The limitations of the development model do not allow for this. The old adage "too many cooks spoil the soup" is not a warning about lack of nutrition, it's a warning that aesthetic issues do not survive committees. Peer review does not produce blockbuster movies, hit songs, or masterpiece paintings. It finds scientific facts, not beauty. From http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html#selfhost http://landley.net/aboriginal/about.html#selfhost