Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Apache OpenOffice 4.0 Has A New Sidebar

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    So far I didn't see any hostility of Apache's OO team against LO, only the other way around. A few months ago Document Foundation members accused Apache of lying, claiming that no Symphony code was ever donated to Apache by IBM. Yet, LO 4.1 now has that “non-existing Symphony sidebar code”.
    Personally, I have more sympathy for Apache because of these actions by TDF.
    Technology-wise, though, both projects are rotting meat. Both projects still use VCL and both projects still run in a single monolithic process. Calligra has the superior architecture. Sadly few people realize that which is why Calligra lacks a bit of robustness a handful of additional bug-squashing contributors could remedy…
    I suggest to read the article on LWN.net to see why some TDF members reacted about Symphony Suite code:
    http://lwn.net/Articles/532665/

    From their point of view, the ambiguity of the license headers is due to IBM represented by Rob Weir who happened to work on Symphony rather than Apache.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    LibreOffice made a massive re-sync with Apache OpenOffice and now the majority of LO's code is under Apache License.
    However, every single modification to to that code is licensed under MPL.
    If any other FOSS project acted that way, it would be at least considered rude to make modifications to a forked file under a different license than the original. It may even be considered hostile.

    So far I didn't see any hostility of Apache's OO team against LO, only the other way around. A few months ago Document Foundation members accused Apache of lying, claiming that no Symphony code was ever donated to Apache by IBM. Yet, LO 4.1 now has that “non-existing Symphony sidebar code”.
    Personally, I have more sympathy for Apache because of these actions by TDF.
    Technology-wise, though, both projects are rotting meat. Both projects still use VCL and both projects still run in a single monolithic process. Calligra has the superior architecture. Sadly few people realize that which is why Calligra lacks a bit of robustness a handful of additional bug-squashing contributors could remedy…
    yeah, Calligra is definitely the superior tech, and an architecture that will develop faster if it only had the manpower, just it needs a lot more contributors than it has at the moment. That said in the long term I do expect that once Calligra advances enough that there's going to be a bit of a snowball effect, particularly with their ability to create task specific applications with minimal upkeep such as Author, and their mobile stuff.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    I suggest to read the article on LWN.net to see why some TDF members reacted about Symphony Suite code:
    http://lwn.net/Articles/532665/

    From their point of view, the ambiguity of the license headers is due to IBM represented by Rob Weir who happened to work on Symphony rather than Apache.
    The headers are gradually being replaced as code is merged with AO, so the LO folks will have to wait until AO implements those features so they can gain access to that code under an Apache license.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    I suggest to read the article on LWN.net to see why some TDF members reacted about Symphony Suite code:
    http://lwn.net/Articles/532665/

    From their point of view, the ambiguity of the license headers is due to IBM represented by Rob Weir who happened to work on Symphony rather than Apache.
    I know the article and I know the comments. It was explained repeatedly that the code was contributed in standard Apache fashion through a Grant.
    And as I wrote: This was just one case. TDF ensuring via its licensing terms that code transfer is a one way street from Apache to TDF is another.
    Hostile actions of TDF against OpenOffice are common.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    I know the article and I know the comments. It was explained repeatedly that the code was contributed in standard Apache fashion through a Grant.
    And as I wrote: This was just one case. TDF ensuring via its licensing terms that code transfer is a one way street from Apache to TDF is another.
    Hostile actions of TDF against OpenOffice are common.
    Apache OpenOffice arrived after LibreOffice. MPL is not a hostile license. Just because IBM / that Rob dude wants to take free software work and make it proprietary. Actually it is completely weird to call that hostile. Try again.

    Now read LWN.net. Loads and loads of accusations and personal attacks by Apache OpenOffice towards LibreOffice.

    Can you give a reference like I gave above?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Awesomeness View Post
    I know the article and I know the comments. It was explained repeatedly that the code was contributed in standard Apache fashion through a Grant.
    And as I wrote: This was just one case. TDF ensuring via its licensing terms that code transfer is a one way street from Apache to TDF is another.
    Hostile actions of TDF against OpenOffice are common.
    So until Apache OpenOffice merged the code regarding Symphony, the code couldn't be used by LibreOffice. You're totally ignoring this, just focussing on LibreOffice.

    You're complaining about the license of LibreOffice, while Apache OpenOffice keeping everything under just copyright (making it impossible to be used by anyone) is just fine.

    Suggest to provide references for those common hostile actions. As you claim these are common, please show 3.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    So until Apache OpenOffice merged the code regarding Symphony, the code couldn't be used by LibreOffice. You're totally ignoring this, just focussing on LibreOffice.

    You're complaining about the license of LibreOffice, while Apache OpenOffice keeping everything under just copyright (making it impossible to be used by anyone) is just fine.

    Suggest to provide references for those common hostile actions. As you claim these are common, please show 3.
    It was a code grant, IBM signed an agreement that Apache would be able to use Symphony code in its product, but not release it freely on its own right.
    Yes, it might sound unfair, but consider how lucky we are to get any of this code what so ever.
    I also find it strange that Libreoffice is on a mission to remove all Java components, yet they add more Java components such as the sidebar just so that Openoffice doesn't have any unique features.

    I'll also mention that due to the way Libreoffice is licensed, all components have to be released under the LGPLv3 since it constitutes a 'greater work' consisting of both the new MPL code and the old LGPL OO.o code. And the LGPL is copyleft, or if you prefer, 'hostile', if there can ever be such a thing as a hostile license.
    Last edited by intellivision; 07-24-2013 at 05:52 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    I'll also mention that due to the way Libreoffice is licensed, all components have to be released under the LGPLv3 since it constitutes a 'greater work' consisting of both the new MPL code and the old LGPL OO.o code. And the LGPL is copyleft, or if you prefer, 'hostile', if there can ever be such a thing as a hostile license.
    LibreOffice was planning to rebase everything on the Apache OpenOffice, thereby allowing the MPL to be used.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bkor View Post
    LibreOffice was planning to rebase everything on the Apache OpenOffice, thereby allowing the MPL to be used.
    Planning, but not succeeding. The fact that they have had this planned for literally years shows that there's some sort of internal conflict about this, if not that at least a valid technical reason.
    So Libreoffice is still under a viral license, and they're importing MORE Java components to reduce AO's unique features, running contrary to the goals of its own project.

    Now, tell me how that isn't spiteful, to compromise one's prioritised goals in order to better a competitor.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Yeah yeah the typical bullshit about "digital preservation" as if you're a public library collecting shit around the world for decades.
    Everyone still using StarOffice era shit deserves problems. Like the IE6 idiots who think their browser should be supported for as long as there are users.
    there is no more bullshit than in this post.

    we are just alking about a couple of years at most. and it is something totally different to keep the WEB compatible to an old browser than a dokument editor compatible to some years old document format where many people for sure still have some important documents in this format.

    you want people to convert every few years all their documents? where is the analogy with the ie6? updating a browser causes no loss for one.

    what ignorance!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •