5 ms·

Most of my coworkers in the enterprise I work for use LibreOffice, but the business itself has made no such decision. We're all remote workers, and the business

Most of my coworkers in the enterprise I work for use LibreOffice, but the business itself has made no such decision. We're all remote workers, and the business provides none of us with locally run software, or any hardware, just lots of SaaS apps. So a spreadsheet file gets passed around, usually from a client, and we're just expected to figure out how to read it. Those of us without MS Office already installed for something else usually install LibreOffice, including me. Is the business doing something wrong here? Should they buy us all copies from Redhat instead of leaving it to us? Am I doing something wrong by using the free version for my enterprise work? Should I pay for a copy out of my salary?

austincheney 6y ago
Is the hardware paid for by you or the business? If the hardware is paid for by the business then everything on that hardware is essentially business property, unless that business declares otherwise, and thus the business should be providing you with properly licensed software.
- hirundo 6y ago
  No employee hardware is payed for by the business. We all use our own machines, and all three major operating systems are well represented. So in your opinion we're all ethically in the clear?
  - howfoss 6y ago
    Ethically who knows but you're definitely legally in the clear
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      "definitely"? you don't even know what country they're in
  - bartvk 6y ago
    You're an employee in an enterprise, so I bet the following applies to you: "TDF stressed that LibreOffice 7.1 "Community" is meant for individuals and that means specifically not enterprise organizations."
    - temac 6y ago
      The license is free software and it would be suicide for TDF to switch the whole project to proprietary software. Therefore companies are in the clear and will likely remain so for a long time if not forever.
    - stu2b50 6y ago
      That's more aggressive begging than a mandate. They have a license for a reason, and that license clearly allows OP's use case. If they do not need the "business" level features Libre's partners offer I see no reason to upgrade.
  - temac 6y ago
    Computers are semi cheap but this is still quite crazy to require employees to come with their own tools to be able to work. I'm happy to live in a country were employers have an obligation to provide that.
- howfoss 6y ago
  It is "properly licensed." That's the issue, and it's why LibreOffice has to beg instead of being able to sue. If LibreOffice doesn't like this use, they can change to a less libre license. That's the point of proprietary and mixed licenses.
  - indymike 6y ago
    If LibreOffice does this, then the entire fork from Apache OpenOffice is fraudulent.
  - snicker7 6y ago
    They just need to rename their community edition to "unsupported edition" or "insecure edition" or "we will leak your IP to china edition".
- bartvk 6y ago
  Does it matter who pays for the hardware? I don't think that distinction is made by The Document Foundation.
- cbm-vic-20 6y ago
  LibreOffice offers their suite under the MPL[1], which doesn't restrict usage by corporations as long as they comply with the terms of the license (just like any other individual). And if the corporation allows this software to be used on their hardware, that seems to be "properly licensed". [1] https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure, big companies or ones with boomer culture work like this. In practice, at startups I've BYOD easily, I've used company hardware for things not company related, etc. Etc. They're not dicks about it.
elliotpage 6y ago
Your employer should be providing the tools for you to do the job, including locally run software. So yes, they should be providing an office suite whether that be Office365/ Libre Office / etc.
- hirundo 6y ago
  It's been a great benefit to have full control over my own hardware and local software. I'd hate to lose it. In particular I'd hate to have to use something other than Linux, but in practice I'd be forced onto an Apple box, which is dominant in the company. It's much the same as using my own home to work in. If they were required to provide me with an office, and I had to use it, whatever benefit there is would not go to me.
- Hammered 6y ago
  > Your employer should be providing the tools for you to do the job Why? Skilled tradesmen frequently own their own tools, and many wouldn't have it any other way. You can bet your ass many of them have spent an order of magnitude more on their tools than a few measly software licenses ($20 for a text editor? Extortionist! But a cheap cordless drill costs several times that...) In California, employers are only required to provide the tools necessary for a job if they're paying you less than twice minimum wage, a bar you surely clear.
  - tomhoward 6y ago
    Skilled tradesmen are self-employed, and work as contractors to their clients. Software developers who work as independent contractors generally own their own equipment and software (in Australia that's actually one of the legal criteria for determining whether someone is a contractor or an employee for taxation purposes). Whereas employees generally use company-supplied hardware and software, which is to the employer's benefit as they have full control over it. But that's really by the by; whoever is procuring software to be used for commercial purposes, it is reasonable to expect they would purchase commercial licenses to help fund the development of their tools.
chiefalchemist 6y ago
I'm surprised privacy and security isn't more of a concern. Howcan they effectively say, "Do whatever you want. It doesn't matter to HQ."?
- indymike 6y ago
  Why should it matter to HQ? The result of the work probably matters (i.e. a document), but the software used to create it? Doesn't really matter so long as it can be read. There are so many ways to do IT than the old central control of all the things model from the 90s.
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    Because...Security? That's not an issue? Imagine one unintend breach and poof! customer data splattered across the (dark) web. I can't imagine how security and privacy are of no concern. Has that been cleared by legal? Or is it laziness and/or negligence?
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Because they trust you to do it right. At a certain stage of organization, if you put a lot of barriers in people's way your company will fail.
      - stu2b50 6y ago
        At the same time, IT is not everyone's forte. If you're a office worker that types documents and looks at spreadsheets, should you be expected to know if the document suite you're using has a zero day that was just released? I trust you're not being malicious, and I trust that you're not trying to be insecure, but software is a complex world now.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        No you're right which is why usually you have some very sane default like Google Sheets and then let people escape hatch when they need to. Then you hire the people who won't use the escape hatch to bring Bonzibuddy PolitburoSuite to do their spreadsheets.
lumost 6y ago
Depending on your industry, not providing hardware could end up in sketchy legal ground. Generally speaking, any software development activities I perform on my company issued laptop can be interpreted as belonging to the company without prior agreement. If I was using my own machine - it's likely the company would try to enforce security policies on it, or claim ownership of anything I develop on my hardware. While I am not a lawyer - Given the shrink-wrapped nature of such contracts, it's likely an employee could challenge this in court.

austincheney 6y ago

Is the hardware paid for by you or the business? If the hardware is paid for by the business then everything on that hardware is essentially business property, unless that business declares otherwise, and thus the business should be providing you with properly licensed software.

hirundo 6y ago
No employee hardware is payed for by the business. We all use our own machines, and all three major operating systems are well represented. So in your opinion we're all ethically in the clear?
- howfoss 6y ago
  Ethically who knows but you're definitely legally in the clear
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    "definitely"? you don't even know what country they're in
- bartvk 6y ago
  You're an employee in an enterprise, so I bet the following applies to you: "TDF stressed that LibreOffice 7.1 "Community" is meant for individuals and that means specifically not enterprise organizations."
  - temac 6y ago
    The license is free software and it would be suicide for TDF to switch the whole project to proprietary software. Therefore companies are in the clear and will likely remain so for a long time if not forever.
  - stu2b50 6y ago
    That's more aggressive begging than a mandate. They have a license for a reason, and that license clearly allows OP's use case. If they do not need the "business" level features Libre's partners offer I see no reason to upgrade.
- temac 6y ago
  Computers are semi cheap but this is still quite crazy to require employees to come with their own tools to be able to work. I'm happy to live in a country were employers have an obligation to provide that.
howfoss 6y ago
It is "properly licensed." That's the issue, and it's why LibreOffice has to beg instead of being able to sue. If LibreOffice doesn't like this use, they can change to a less libre license. That's the point of proprietary and mixed licenses.
- indymike 6y ago
  If LibreOffice does this, then the entire fork from Apache OpenOffice is fraudulent.
- snicker7 6y ago
  They just need to rename their community edition to "unsupported edition" or "insecure edition" or "we will leak your IP to china edition".
bartvk 6y ago
Does it matter who pays for the hardware? I don't think that distinction is made by The Document Foundation.
cbm-vic-20 6y ago
LibreOffice offers their suite under the MPL[1], which doesn't restrict usage by corporations as long as they comply with the terms of the license (just like any other individual). And if the corporation allows this software to be used on their hardware, that seems to be "properly licensed". [1] https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses https://www.libreoffice.org/about-us/licenses
renewiltord 6y ago
Sure, big companies or ones with boomer culture work like this. In practice, at startups I've BYOD easily, I've used company hardware for things not company related, etc. Etc. They're not dicks about it.

elliotpage 6y ago

Your employer should be providing the tools for you to do the job, including locally run software. So yes, they should be providing an office suite whether that be Office365/ Libre Office / etc.

hirundo 6y ago
It's been a great benefit to have full control over my own hardware and local software. I'd hate to lose it. In particular I'd hate to have to use something other than Linux, but in practice I'd be forced onto an Apple box, which is dominant in the company. It's much the same as using my own home to work in. If they were required to provide me with an office, and I had to use it, whatever benefit there is would not go to me.
Hammered 6y ago
> Your employer should be providing the tools for you to do the job Why? Skilled tradesmen frequently own their own tools, and many wouldn't have it any other way. You can bet your ass many of them have spent an order of magnitude more on their tools than a few measly software licenses ($20 for a text editor? Extortionist! But a cheap cordless drill costs several times that...) In California, employers are only required to provide the tools necessary for a job if they're paying you less than twice minimum wage, a bar you surely clear.
- tomhoward 6y ago
  Skilled tradesmen are self-employed, and work as contractors to their clients. Software developers who work as independent contractors generally own their own equipment and software (in Australia that's actually one of the legal criteria for determining whether someone is a contractor or an employee for taxation purposes). Whereas employees generally use company-supplied hardware and software, which is to the employer's benefit as they have full control over it. But that's really by the by; whoever is procuring software to be used for commercial purposes, it is reasonable to expect they would purchase commercial licenses to help fund the development of their tools.

chiefalchemist 6y ago

I'm surprised privacy and security isn't more of a concern. Howcan they effectively say, "Do whatever you want. It doesn't matter to HQ."?

indymike 6y ago
Why should it matter to HQ? The result of the work probably matters (i.e. a document), but the software used to create it? Doesn't really matter so long as it can be read. There are so many ways to do IT than the old central control of all the things model from the 90s.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  Because...Security? That's not an issue? Imagine one unintend breach and poof! customer data splattered across the (dark) web. I can't imagine how security and privacy are of no concern. Has that been cleared by legal? Or is it laziness and/or negligence?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Because they trust you to do it right. At a certain stage of organization, if you put a lot of barriers in people's way your company will fail.
    - stu2b50 6y ago
      At the same time, IT is not everyone's forte. If you're a office worker that types documents and looks at spreadsheets, should you be expected to know if the document suite you're using has a zero day that was just released? I trust you're not being malicious, and I trust that you're not trying to be insecure, but software is a complex world now.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        No you're right which is why usually you have some very sane default like Google Sheets and then let people escape hatch when they need to. Then you hire the people who won't use the escape hatch to bring Bonzibuddy PolitburoSuite to do their spreadsheets.

lumost 6y ago

Depending on your industry, not providing hardware could end up in sketchy legal ground. Generally speaking, any software development activities I perform on my company issued laptop can be interpreted as belonging to the company without prior agreement. If I was using my own machine - it's likely the company would try to enforce security policies on it, or claim ownership of anything I develop on my hardware. While I am not a lawyer - Given the shrink-wrapped nature of such contracts, it's likely an employee could challenge this in court.