Apache OpenOffice Releases Version 3.4 151
An anonymous reader sends word that Apache OpenOffice 3.4 has been released (download). This is the first release since OpenOffice became a project at the Apache Software Foundation. The release notes list all of the improvements, the highlights of which The H has summarized:
"According to its developers, Apache OpenOffice (AOO) 3.4.0, the first update since OpenOffice.org 3.3.0 from January 2011, now starts up faster than its predecessor and introduces a number of new features such as support for documents secured using AES256 encryption. The Linear Programming solver in the Calc spreadsheet program has been replaced with the CoinMP C-API library from the Computational Infrastructure for Operations Research (COIN-OR) project. As in LibreOffice 3.4.0, the DataPilot functionality has been renamed to Pivot Table, and now supports an unlimited number of fields. A new 'Quote all text cells' CSV (Comma Separated Values) export option has been also added to Calc. Other changes include improved ODF 1.2 encryption and Unix Printing support and various enhancements to the Impress presentation and Draw sketching programs."
So like... (Score:2, Funny)
Which office suite are we supposed to be cheerleading for here at slashdot? I though it was LibreOffice
Calligra (Score:5, Funny)
No, it's Calligra. :P
Re: (Score:1)
Well, vi vs. Emacs was getting old already, thanks to Oracle we now have a more modern target: OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So like... (Score:5, Insightful)
LaTeX and R.
Re:So like... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad both LibreOffice and OpenOffice exist.
# The two will mimic each other's positive changes
# They will presumably stay compatible, but distinct
# One is a community effort, the other is a corporate effort (or at least, that's the image each has)
The dream is that high-quality open formats become standard in all major office suites, so that people can choose to buy or download what they want. The choice should be in the interface used, and not the level of compatibility with the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No we don't, one was donated by Oracle so they didn't have to maintain it (because they managed to piss off most of the devs). The right thing for the community would have been for Apache to drop it as a clear signal to Oracle and its ilk so they maybe might start fixing their attitude, now Oracle just gets what it wants: an updated Office suite they can do whatever they want with whenever they want (due to the license).
The main reason as I see it, to keep this "thing" "alive" is out of anti-GPL sentiment,
Re: (Score:2)
The main reason as I see it, to keep this "thing" "alive" is out of anti-GPL sentiment, which is just a plain retarded reason in my book.
Chill. In many cases anti-GPL sentiment turns into a creative force. Recall that code from the Apache project can be incorporated into the GPL project but going the other way is not allowed. An Apache product can therefore be viewed as a kind of code cow for the GPL project, much like an aphid.
Even though I am a strong advocate for copyleft, I recognize that non-copyleft projects also play a useful and productive role. We just need to ensure that they do not dominate, because in that direction lies erosion
Re: (Score:2)
While true here I feel the effort is wasted. We don't have two different Office suites but rather twice more or less the same Office suite with a different license. The likelihood of both projects spending/wasting quite a bit of time/effort trying to not deviate too much from each other seems rather big, this effort would have been better spent on competing with actually different office suites (or standalone applications) instead of with their clone.
Just get on the cart (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I know! I just migrated my company to LibreOffice, and I'm not sure why I would want to migrate back.
The Real Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The question on my mind as I read this, and I think many here would agree, is "so what makes this different from or better than Libre Office, now that Oracle has alienated a significant portion of OpenOffice's users and developers?"
Yeah, diversity is good, but I'd like to see this project tout its advantages if they think there be any.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKThYfZuzY
Re:The Real Question (Score:5, Funny)
The narrator sounds like Kermit the Frog finally hit puberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I still use OpenOffice at home because based on the LibreOffice install at work what's changed is mostly bugs, crashes, and perverse behaviour.
For example: it seems to be impossible to open a tab-separated file in Calc. Try it from within Calc, and it'll dump the file into Writer instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I still use OpenOffice at home because based on the LibreOffice install at work what's changed is mostly bugs, crashes, and perverse behaviour.
For example: it seems to be impossible to open a tab-separated file in Calc. Try it from within Calc, and it'll dump the file into Writer instead.
Confusing language. Are you saying that this happens in OpenOffice or LibreOffice? I use Calc/LibreOffice all the time to import tab-delimited files with no trouble. Writer's not involved at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse is trying to open an HTML file in Writer.
Good luck having it display a formatted page... you usually just get the markup.
This import worked until around 3.2, then broke horribly.
Sam
Re: (Score:2)
+ 1 You-read-my-mind.
Now we need someone to answer it. LibreOffice is free (both cost and open source). OpenOffice is???
I've got one possibility (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I've got one possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
As an aside, why is it nowadays that I spend more time trying to get software to behave the way it used to behave before it was updated? I've had problems with "upgrades" of MS Office, OS X, Windows, Openoffice, gnome, kde, and even just getting e17 to work any more on my home machine is an issue. Either I'm just getting old or the productivity of software on the desktop has peaked and in the continual drive for improving things, we're just making worse software. I still upgrade, because there are often some new features that I like in the new software, but it often feels like one step forward, one step back.
Re: (Score:2)
> As an aside, why is it nowadays that I spend more time trying to get software to behave the way it used to behave before it was updated?
Possibly because if software progressed towards perfection you'd need updates less and less frequently. So commercial software rehashes stuff or even boycotts its own stuff, look at adobe/flash, microsoft/.net, oracle/java, nokia/maemo, apple/final cut pro. and sadly the pressure to look like the advertised latest and greatest affects free software developers that end
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Given the choice, I'll just use Excel
Because Excel costs mucho deniro, where Open or LibreOffice does not. Oh and yes it is worthwhile to copy the behavior users are accustomed to, rather than something new that has to be relearned (and make users grumble).
Re: (Score:2)
I am having problems running installed and portable LibreOffice after v3.3. I posted http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/msg19652.html [libreoffice.org] in the public mailing list and added a bug report: ttps://www.libreoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49499 .... Maybe someone else can help me? For now, I will have to use the old versions like v3.3.x.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you go ahead and persuade all the individual contributors to switch the license on their code. I'll wait. I mean, nobody in the world actually supports the GPL for its own sake, right? I'm sure you won't have any problems. [tvtropes.org]
Re:The Real Question (Score:5, Informative)
At this point the rebels are in control of more territory than the government - LibreOffice had integrated the Go-OO patchset.
Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (Score:5, Informative)
Horribly out of date vs. LibreOffice - see the comparison [gnome.org] - missing a ton of filters, barely interoperable with Microsoft Office, etc. etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Licensing ensures that it will stay that way. ApacheOffice code can be copied into LibreOffice (Apache License -> LGPL), but the reverse is not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the last I looked, (not sure if this is still the case), OpenOffice demanded copyright attribution, whereas LibreOffice doesn't. LibreOffice can't realistically change their license to a non-GPL compatible, non copyleft license, because they would have to get permission from every copyright holder. The only reason the Apache foundation could change the license was because Sun / Oracle demanded that all the authors sign their rights away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah an few users by comparison. People don't know what LibreOffice is. Sorry but the Libre folk should merge back with the product which has some market share.
Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't merge GPL code into Apache license code, it's not compatible that way.
Instead, Apache should just give the rights to OpenOffice brand to LibreOffice, and merge their changes into LO codebase (which is possible).
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Why should Apache have to?
This is my only problem with GPL - its adherents think it's the One True License and that everyone else should comply.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a GPL adherent, not by a long shot. In this case, the reasons are purely pragmatical: it is already clear that the development of LibreOffice is going much faster than OpenOffice, and e.g. most Linux distro already ship LO. The situation between two forks right now is most closely resembling Xorg vs XFree86, and we know how that went for the latter. There's simply no meaningful purpose in having them different. That the more developed fork also happens to be LGPL-licensed is of no consequence - it's
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Heap of junk vs. LibreOffice... (Score:4, Interesting)
Marketshare (as opposed to usage share or other shares) is usually defined as "$ sales for product/$ sales for all products in the market". As such, both LO and AOO have either 0% marketshare or undefined marketshare, depending on how you draw the boundary of the market.
Usage share, I suspect that LibreOffice has at least as much as AOO (which, after all, just had its first stable release), though they both probably have less than their common ancestor, OOo.
LibreOffice is also more feature rich and under more active development, so from all indications AOO is likely to get further and further behind over time, which is going to make it very hard for it to maintain, much less gain, usage share against LO.
Re: (Score:2)
I need something that works. I know Libreoffice works now, but in the past basic functionality has been subservient to features. It doesn't matter if you disagree. This is my experience. At some point if OO.org stops doing what I need it do, then I will try Libreoffice.
MS functionality is very important to those that have depended MS for their livelihood. This is beyond just a workflow to the point where the MS lords giv
Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using OpenOffice.org for years. I just want it to work. I don't care so much about the bickering about whose license is better. So it is good to see the code land at Apache, a foundation with a decade of experience running open source projects. I think the move to Apache shows a seriousness of purpose and a focus on producing a solid product and growing a open source community free from corporate domination.
And in the end, the question is not how this compares to LibreOffice. That is a non-question considering that their market share is a round-off error. The real question is how Apache OpenOffice compares to Microsoft Office, and what will they do to make it something that users will prefer. Free is nice, I don't question that. But debating who is free and who is libre and who is more free, etc., misses the point entirely. Users have work to do, and generally don't care about licenses. If they did then 90%+ would not be running MS Office.
So good news. I've upgraded. But the big question is, "What next?" And maybe, "How can we help?"
Re: (Score:2)
Subscribe to their lists. http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html
Some ideas here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Help+Wanted
Also it's fun to write extensions...which are hosted over on SourceForge.
Not so great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Picking Apache "because they know how to do this OpenSourc-ey thing" is like buying IBM because it never gets you fired - a pointy-haired boss decision of cluelessness. It meanwhile looks like the folks at LibreOffice know how to build nice communities just alright.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad the quality of what they have is terrible. Even Apache their star product is a poor code base.
Re: (Score:1)
But debating who is free and who is libre and who is more free, etc., misses the point entirely.
No, thinking that the main difference between OpenOffice and LibreOffice is about one being more free than the other is missing the point.
Re:Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure you have actual evidence to back your statement. Libreoffice is the de facto standard office suite in any linux distro. Besides, the fast pace and the publicity coverage it received (correctly so, I should say), compared to OO.org, made it a much more known product that you think it is (The Document Foundation in September 2011 claimed an installed based of about 25 million users).
Do the math (Score:2)
Microsoft claimed 750 million users of Office back in 2010. LibreOffice claims 25 million. OpenOffice claims 100 million. Add in WordPerfect, Symphony, Google Docs, etc., and LibreOffice would struggle to make 1%.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/about-that-1-billion-microsoft-office-figure-/6555 [zdnet.com]
Re:Do the math (Score:5, Funny)
Wow. I am the one percent. Cool :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So if you want to know, take a moment and read the Release Notes. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+3.4+Release+Notes
You'll see two sections, one 'New Features from the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta' and one 'New Features for Apache OpenOffice 3.4. So LibreOffice 3.x is based on the same source code for the first section since they forked it under LGPL and worked on that. Same thing with the Apache OpenOffice community. The second section describes the features added by the Apache project,
Oracle (Score:5, Funny)
So, how long until Oracle sues them for using Java? :p
So competition is good.... (Score:2)
I guess anyway.
To be honest, its hard to get excited when there are 2 competing groups using basically the same code-base, targeting the same audience... Seems like such a waste of talent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same with anything, should there only be one car company in the world? How about Nvidia vs AMD? Surely if they just worked together.. Just because both are open source doesn't mean much.
Apache OpenOffice (Score:2)
Well then... (Score:2)
Well then, the 10 people still using OpenOffice will be able to update... I mean, LibreOffice is faster and their template site works. Plus it does not have that Oracle logo...
Binary StarOffice export filters silently dropped (Score:4, Informative)
I can't say which I find less encouraging and less trust-inspiring, the fact that the support for writing StarOffice 5 binary formats (sdw, sdc, sda, etc.) has been dropped per se, or the circumstance that such a significant change has been introduced quietly and without even being mentioned in the release notes.
Did they hope nobody would notice, perhaps assuming that users of StarOffice binary file formats would have all died of old age by now?
Not all have, though, and some do even remember that StarOffice 5.2 used to have a feature set which OpenOffice and LibreOffice, more than ten years later, still do not completely replace, which is why some still keep their StarOffice 5.2 setup (working perfectly well on Windows 7 x64) alive, some alongside whatever else they may be using these days, some (like myself) even as their primary office application suite.
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:5, Funny)
LibreOffice isn't GPL
It's GPL. There's a huge difference.
I suggest you read it.
--
BMO
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:5, Informative)
Ah dammit, i meant to say LGPL
http://www.libreoffice.org/download/license/ [libreoffice.org]
--
BMO
Maybe. . . (Score:3)
THe difference between LGPL and GPL is only one thing. . . dynamic linking. The thing is, it's still an open legal question as to whether the prohibition on linking is legally enforceable. If it's not, then GPL and LGPL are the same.
The question arises because it's not legally clear that dynamic linking creates a derivative work subject to the terms of the GPL. I might, or it might not, who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
it could be a v2 v3 thing or it could be a gpl but not run by gnu but it was a typo :-\
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
There's a huge difference between the GPL and the...GPL? lolwut?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there's a huge difference between the GPL [gnu.org] and the GPL. [gnu.org] Not to mention the much bigger difference to the GPL. [yahoo.com] :-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I suggest you're correct!
--
BMO
Re: (Score:1)
How does the Apache license benefit you personally as opposed to the GPL?
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure if troll, or actually insightful.
Both Apache and Berkeley licenses are quite business-friendly. OTOH, I get raised eyebrows when I want to add even a LGPL library.
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:5, Insightful)
How are they not business friendly?
There are very few businesses who will want to modify OO/LO and release derivative versions to third parties... Most companies simply want to use the software as-is, and a very small minority might want to modify it for internal use. For these uses, even the full blown GPL has no impact whatsoever.
Also the main competitors to OO/LO are licensed under considerably more restrictive terms than the GPL.. While the GPL may place restrictions on redistribution, the MS license prevents redistribution or modification at all under any terms.
Re: (Score:1)
LGPL is more friendly because you can link to code and apis without the license applying to their own code.
Many corporations have anti gnu policies for that reason. LGPl gets around that. I wish more code on sourceforge had it as many developers are not aware of that issue.
Re: (Score:1)
LGPL is more friendly because you can link to code and apis without the license applying to their own code.
Many corporations have anti gnu policies for that reason. LGPl gets around that. I wish more code on sourceforge had it as many developers are not aware of that issue.
Strictly speaking, if you link GPL code with your own proprietary non-GPL code, the result is an infringement of the GPL license for which you could be sued. Your code does not become GPL, and the GPL code does not become proprietary. In the same way, if you were to infringe Microsoft's copyright you would not get copyright over their code and they wouldn't get copyright over yours - although they may claim damages from you.
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, if you link GPL code with your own proprietary non-GPL code and distribute it, the result is an infringement of the GPL license for which you could be sued.
I've added a clarification there, because GGPs point rests on it: the license doesn't matter if you're only planning to use it internally. For those who want to distribute, your correction of the GP stands.
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:4, Interesting)
LGPL is more friendly because you can link to code and apis without the license applying to their own code.
That must be an entirely insignificant proportion of the users of something like LO/OO.
Many corporations have anti gnu policies for that reason.
Silly corporations. If they want to have silly policies, that's their problem. Many many many many corporations have accepted Linux and/or gcc, which means accepting the GPL. Even Microsoft had to bow to the inevitible and make Linux work well under Hyper-V. If some corporations reckon they know better than Apple, Google, Intel, AMD, ARM, Samsung, HTC, NVidia, Nokia (well, who doesn't know better than them these days), Cray, SGI, Amazon, Facebook, huge numbers of banks, every smartphone manufacturer, every supercomputer vendor, every vendor which makes SoCs large enough to run a proper OS, and untold numbers of other companies, then I guess that's their choice.
Re: (Score:1)
What do all these companies have in common you ask? They all have a fuck-ton of resources and money, that's what. They can afford to give away both software and human productivity in an effort to draw users to their more lucrative products.
Re: (Score:2)
LGPL2-3? (Score:2)
GNU phobia (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few reasons that corporations have anti GPL policies. One is that when the license is put in front of their legal departments, many of them, from a reading of the license, and also from the well known fact that so many others have read it that way, conclude that if a GPL software is combined w/ software under any other license, the combination becomes GPL. People may argue that point here, but the fact remains that there isn't a consensus that when combined, the license of one doesn't affect that of the other.
There is another thing @ play here - the FSF. Organizations like the OSI are interested in promoting the philosophy of open sourced software, and they do so working w/ software companies and factoring in their interests as well. As a result, more companies are only too happy to work w/ them. With the FSF, otoh, there is this obsession w/ 'software freedom', and nothing illustrates this better than a look @ what's changed when going from GPL2 to GPL3. While GPL3 is compatible w/ more licenses than GPL2 was, certain aspects, such as termination clauses and expanded scopes of what's covered. For instance, in AGPL2, all that was there was that users of a web application would be able to receive its source: in AGPL3, coverage is expanded to all network-interactive software, so it will 'also work well' for programs like game servers i.e. force them to distribute their source code as well.
But one of the biggest problems w/ the FSF is the perception that it's business hostile - one that's richly borne out by its treatment of TiVo, in a way that it's actually used that company's name as a slur on one of the policies it deems unacceptable. Under GPL2, while it was necessary for a provider to provide the source code, it was not necessary that the provider should provide an unlocked box so that the user can modify the code and run it himself. In TiVo, which uses Linux to run the various STB functions, it makes sense that the company not allow its customers to alter the contents of the firmware, and thereby potentially damage the box and making it unusable for themselves or anyone else. So Tivo supplied the box w/ the OS locked - maybe put into an OTP or some such mechanism. GPL2 didn't consider this problem, which is why TiVo is GPL2 compliant, but GPL3 does. GPL3 forces a company that locks down its GPL3 software i.e. provides the source code, but provides the product on something that can't be altered, to to provide the recipient with whatever information or data is necessary to install modified software on the device. And it uses the word 'TiVoization' to describe this 'problem', as though the company was guilty of heresy in the religion of St IGNUtius.
This is why no company whose executives have a brain will touch the GPL, particularly GPL3. Let's say a company - a competitor to TiVo - were to come up w/ a similar box. They too would need to lock down their firmware, so that customers can't accidentally render the box unusable. But if they are forced to provide some customers w/ ways to unlock the box so that they can install their own firmware then, who takes care of the liabilities? As it is, it's a freeloader society where people who do such things are more likely than not to go back crying to the manufacturer when the altered thing doesn't work and they want to restore the last known good configuration, and while the EULA may have freed the vendor of any liability, fact remains that to avoid any negative publicity, most companies actually would do what they can to fix it. Given that reality, it makes sense for such companies to prevent customers from tinkering w/ their set top boxes. The reasons could be not just the above, but maybe the service provider doesn't want the customer to unlock the STB and set it up so that it can start receiving free (as in gratis) channels from Australia, Russia, South Africa and Mexico, or domestic unsubscribed channels not in the paid plan. It would not be difficult to convince the OSI that an STP is different from a
Well, F Me Sideways! (Score:4, Insightful)
I just never thought about it THAT way! You are so right!
My car isn't a car, it's a TDUPR (transportation device using public roads). Lock it Down! No modifications!
My house isn't a house, it's a PDIN (person domicile in neighbourhood). Lock it Down! No modifications!
My job isn't a job, it a GEAS (gainful employment aiding society). Lock it Down! No changes!
Can't be rendering anything unusable; the companies have said so.
Wait a minute -- you nearly had me. We have a word to describe this. Facism. No, wait, its TIVOIZATION!
Can be efficient, though.
If the point of tivoizing was to prevent negative publicity -- didn't work that well, did it?
Tivoization! Everyone knows what it is, and WHO invented it. (well, maybe they didn't, but I'll give them the credit)!
Take THAT publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
unixisc
Stooping to ad-hominem attacks. Shame, shame.
Yes, I used the word "fascism". Even used it correctly, Lordy, imagine that! In my (not so humble) opinion, the government of the USA is becoming fascist.
Now, I am not a citizen, or resident of the USA, but let's examine this idea:
- radical authoritarian political ideology - Check (TSA would be an example)
- single ultra-nationalist identity - Check (national anthem at baseball games?)
- racist, coupled with eugenics - Check (number of black people incarcera
Re:GNU phobia (Score:4, Insightful)
Regarding the FSF and Tivo, if you read the background and history the entire purpose of the license was that "the user can modify the code and run it himself". It was always intended as a personal right to modify your own equipment and the source was your means, that the hardware would run any code you put on it was implied but never explicitly stated. It's like realizing your license said "There must be a switch to turn function X off" and someone provided the switch glued stuck in epoxy to follow the letter but not the meaning of the license. I'd be pretty angry too.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom 3 only makes sense in a society where if one alters a product in a way that voids any warranty, one would then take personal responsibility for screwing it up and not go back to the company in the event that it happens. But that's not how America is today - people do such stupid things, and then expect not to be dinged for clearly ignoring any warnings about warranties being voided. Also, for a company that provides a box via a service provider whose services depend on the configuration of that bo
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom 3 only makes sense in a society where if one alters a product in a way that voids any warranty
They've tried this with cars, if you got unoriginal spark plugs we won't honor the warranty on the exhaust system and that didn't fly. It's not like you can break a CPU or GPU by sending it bad code, restore to the factory supplied software and it's still good. You'd have to work real hard to convince me a software change is any reason to void your hardware warranty.
Also, for a company that provides a box via a service provider whose services depend on the configuration of that box being locked, freedom 3 has to take a back seat, or like I said in the parent post, someone can buy a minimal package from one of the TV service providers, alter the firmware, and then start getting the channels that weren't paid for.
To take the last thing first, no. Through broadcast encryption each box can have a unique decryption key that only allows it to decrypt the sub
Re: (Score:2)
Your first point seems to make TiVo's case even stronger - one cannot void a warranty if a product has been altered in ways not supported by the vendor.
The encryption key issue - again, under GPL3, that's one of the things that would have to be provided to the end user. So I don't see how GPL3 would have protected the service provider even then. At any rate, as I pointed out in response to the other post above, another reason for a company to provide the code on a read-only device is as a part of a prog
Freezing code = cost reductions (Score:2)
But this is not security through obscurity. It's security through non-alterability. Essentially, the company puts its code - GPL or not - on a read-only device, such as a mask ROM/OTP (which is often another cost reduction measure - when the code has been demonstrated to be ironclad, and doesn't need any changes for that model, then instead of putting it on flash memory, a vendor has a mask made and puts it on ROM, and this result is cheaper than using flash. Equivalent of this is a company doing a hardw
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few businesses who will want to modify OO/LO and release derivative versions to third parties... Most companies simply want to use the software as-is, and a very small minority might want to modify it for internal use. For these uses, even the full blown GPL has no impact whatsoever.
"Very few businesses" isn't a valid argument. The license is business friendly even if it only interests an audience of one.
And there are all kinds of situations where having a "business-friendly" open source license is desirable; you're just thinking of the wrong business cases. Sure, most end users of the suite aren't going to want to modify it. But one example of a derivative version of OpenOffice.org would be IBM Lotus Symphony (recently donated to the Apache Foundation). Might no one ever want to creat
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about Apache or Berkeley being business friendly. It's about how *un-friendly* they are for downstream users and other people wanting to maintain the code and also ensuring that the rights continue to be maintained.
Good luck with that happening with Apache or Berkeley licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom for developers helps, what, everyone who can, does or might use the app. It's a very explicit long term focus. Freedom for users helps...nobody if they can't get the app to work the way they want.
Only one 'good' that users don't care about (Score:1)
If it is a win not to have GPL included user don't care: they click through agreements instantly without reading anyways. Lots of companies helping LibreOffice too - RedHat, Intel, Ubuntu, Google and other. Why bother waste time with Apache deadproject place ?
Re:Apache ftw! (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you planning to modify your office suite and distribute those modifications as closed source? If not, the differences between GPL and BSD are irrelevant to you. If so, why?
Re: (Score:1)
Many large corps consider this a big deal and have strict policies.
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Are these large corps planning to modify the software and distribute those modifications as closed source?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, IBM for one which did so with their Lotus Symphony Suite.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, one company. I guess they'll have to avoid anything under the GPL or BSD.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Are these large corps planning to modify the software and distribute those modifications as closed source?
As a developer at a large corp, I do find it frustrating when I'm working on an app; find that someone has already implemented a particular routine/method/whatever that I'd like to use, but has made it GPL. It'll form less than 2% of my app, but could save me 5 to 10% of the coding time if it's a particularly thorny problem.
When the licence is LGPL or similar, I use the code in a self contained library, heap praise upon the developer(s), make sure the source is available as it should be, and release the re
Who's fault is that? (Score:3)
Your company (which includes you) won't touch GPL. The tradeoff is, as you mentioned, a much increased development effort.
Not the fault of the GPL -- that is simply a license specifying tit for tat (in a nutshell).
And it's RIGHT -- I see many interesting parts in closed source programs, and I can't leverage them, or touch them. Completely out of reach. So, you can't take GPL baubles.
Tit for tat. It WORKS, bitches!
Re: (Score:2)
This is the whole point of the GPL, so you don't take someone else's work, derive something off it, then distribute the derived product in a less free way. Your payment as such for using GPL software is that if you distribute something based on it (however small) you pay the community back by distributing your source.
If you don't want to do that, consider contacting the original author and working out a proprietary license deal, so the original author gets something (such as money) in lieu of the source cod
Re: (Score:2)
This is the GPL working as intended.
Yes, it is... and I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it's frustrating.
I don't say for a second that it's a failing of the GPL - it is indeed working as intended - I just don't particularly agree with the intention.
This is the whole point of the GPL, so you don't take someone else's work, derive something off it, then distribute the derived product in a less free way. Your payment as such for using GPL software is that if you distribute something based on it (however small) you pay the community back by distributing your source.
That's what I really don't like... the "however small" part. I write code both professionally and privately. If I choose to release something under an open licence, I avoid the GPL precisely because I know how much it's going to frustrate others in similar situations to myself. I'd far
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many large corps consider this a big deal and have strict policies for absolutely no good reason.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh the reason is, perhaps not entirely good, but at least solid. Yes, a very solidly understood reason at that. One begins with an understanding that there are busybodies, a class of people whose superiors obviously had better things to do. Looking for work and not finding any, they had to come up with something to keep them occupied. For reasons lost in the mist of history, such occupation never involves things that are pleasant, like, say, reading a comic book, shooting one's sister with pebbles from a bl
Re: (Score:3)
If it was so simple, ZFS would already be in the Linux kernel.
OSS libraries are often incompatible with each other, and not everyone is willing to change theirs to accommodate mixes.
Re: (Score:2)
It is exactly that simple. Including ZFS in the kernel is a modification. The kernel is distributed, so that's distributing a modification. The differences between BSD and GPL matter.
But that's off topic, we're talking about an office suite. Using an office suite is neither modification nor distribution, so BSD or GPL is entirely irrelevant to the end user.
Re: (Score:2)
You said it only mattered if the person is planning to "distribute those modifications as closed source", and that's not true; it matters if you're planning to distribute it at all, closed or open.