Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Ted Rolle, Jr. wrote: > I've seen both. Good, that's what software freedom is about :-). > Is LibreOffice a fork of the OOO code? Yes. > I don't know which one to choose. > This list is not really for comparisons among the many OOo forks. I am personally happy with thew original OOo but you are free to try them out and choose whatever fits best for you. best regards, Pedro.
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > --- On Tue, 6/28/11, Ted Rolle, Jr. wrote: > >> I've seen both. > > Good, that's what software freedom is about :-). > >> Is LibreOffice a fork of the OOO code? > > Yes. > >> I don't know which one to choose. >> One of the most important differences is the licensing: OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, LO uses the GPL (copyleft license)
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: > > One of the most important differences is the licensing: > > OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, OOO is LGPLv3, the AOO fork will be ASL2 > LO uses the GPL (copyleft license) LO use LGPLv3 and some of it is dual licensed LGPLv3+ and MPL Norbert
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
>> OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, > OOO is LGPLv3, the AOO fork will be ASL2 To my knowledge the OOo trademark will be transferred to the ASF (or is already?). Therefore I would not say this project is a fork of OOo, it is OOo. No? >> LO uses the GPL (copyleft license) > LO use LGPLv3 and some of it is dual licensed LGPLv3+ and MPL > > Norbert > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, >> OOO is LGPLv3, the AOO fork will be ASL2 > > To my knowledge the OOo trademark will be transferred to the ASF (or > is already?). > Therefore I would not say this project is a fork of OOo, it is OOo. No? > >>> LO uses the GPL (copyleft license) >> LO use LGPLv3 and some of it is dual licensed LGPLv3+ and MPL It matters not. Furthermore, the common base was made available under a number of licenses, not just LGPLv3. There are now (or soon will be) two actively maintained branches of this common code base. >> Norbert - Sam Ruby
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: >>> OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, >> OOO is LGPLv3, the AOO fork will be ASL2 > > To my knowledge the OOo trademark will be transferred to the ASF (or > is already?). > Therefore I would not say this project is a fork of OOo, it is OOo. No? "Eric Raymond, in his seminal essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar,[1] stated in 1997 that "The most important characteristic of a fork is that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, splitting the potential developer community"." So, since OOo and LO have compatible license that allow code exchange and AOO won't, then it seems that that qualify as a 'fork' of OOo. Norbert
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On 28 Jun 2011, at 14:37, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier > wrote: OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, >>> OOO is LGPLv3, the AOO fork will be ASL2 >> >> To my knowledge the OOo trademark will be transferred to the ASF (or >> is already?). >> Therefore I would not say this project is a fork of OOo, it is OOo. No? > > "Eric Raymond, in his seminal essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar,[1] > stated in 1997 that "The most important characteristic of a fork is > that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, > splitting the potential developer community"." > > So, since OOo and LO have compatible license that allow code exchange > and AOO won't, then it seems that that qualify as a 'fork' of OOo. With the greatest possible respect, this is a divisive discussion that helps no-one. The former OpenOffice.org project no longer exists and is being replaced by two (hopefully co-operating) open source projects deriving works from its source code but both different from it in multiple ways. S.
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 13:37, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Christian Grobmeier > wrote: OOO uses (or will use in future) the ASL 2.0 license, >>> OOO is LGPLv3, the AOO fork will be ASL2 >> >> To my knowledge the OOo trademark will be transferred to the ASF (or >> is already?). >> Therefore I would not say this project is a fork of OOo, it is OOo. No? > > "Eric Raymond, in his seminal essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar,[1] > stated in 1997 that "The most important characteristic of a fork is > that it spawns competing projects that cannot later exchange code, > splitting the potential developer community"." > > So, since OOo and LO have compatible license that allow code exchange > and AOO won't, then it seems that that qualify as a 'fork' of OOo. This is not the correct list to argue semantics. People have various opinions, and ESR is *not* the only reference for what "fork" means. Also, please note it is the "Apache License, v2.0". There is no "S" in the acronym. -g
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
> Also, please note it is the "Apache License, v2.0". There is no "S" in > the acronym. haha my mistake - i always do it wrong :-)
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
FWIW; One interesting difference that I see happening in the future wrt LibreOffice is that Apache OpenOffice will be a big consumer of Java stuff. Apache PDFBox looks like a good candidate for inclusion. cheers, Pedro.
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
Maybe better to emphasise the similarities, the most important being that they both operate on odf files with 100% fidelity. From a user point of view that is very important and not mentioned in this thread which was started by what seems to be a user not a dev. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
RE: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
Umm, 100% fidelity to/of what? I would love to understand the qualifications that attach to that statement, and how whatever that is can be demonstrated/verified. "[T]hey both operate on odf files with 100% fidelity." - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ian Lynch [mailto:ianrly...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 14:48 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; giffu...@tutopia.com Subject: Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice. Maybe better to emphasise the similarities, the most important being that they both operate on odf files with 100% fidelity. From a user point of view that is very important and not mentioned in this thread which was started by what seems to be a user not a dev. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On 30 June 2011 07:10, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Umm, 100% fidelity to/of what? I would love to understand the > qualifications that attach to that statement, and how whatever that is can > be demonstrated/verified. > > "[T]hey both operate on odf files with 100% fidelity." > If I save an odf file from OOo it will open exactly the same in LibO. If that isn't true than I would be interested to know where things break. (Fonts I think are a different issue) If it isn't 100% true it is pretty likely to be more true than filtering to either other applications that use odf or .doc etc. From an end user point of view all they will be concerned about is that files produced in OOo don't break in any way if imported into LibO or vice versa. Of course product divergence might make this less likely but at the moment I don't think there is a significant problem but I'm willing to be corrected. So do we scare the end user or give them more confidence? In terms of verification or otherwise, give me a file created in OOo that will not open correctly in LibO other than because the fonts are different on the two systems creating the files. If you prefer to say that OOo/LibO use the same file format so you are safe exchanging files between OOo and LibO, Ok, better to get rid of all mentions of technical stuff for end users in any case. What we need is to give reasonable confidence to the end user rather than obscure (to them) technical reasons why that might on some almost impossibly rare occasion not be the case. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
RE: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
>From this, is it more precise to say that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.org >provide 100% fidelity in interchange of documents with each other when >employing their common native format, ODF? And the presumption for that is the common code base which is their common inheritance assures that, at least for now? Is it safe to conclude that this statement does not extend to anything about completeness and quality of support for ODF beyond the fact that, all else being equal, whatever the one produces and carries via the ODF format, the other successfully consumes? And this is without qualification? If this statement were made in front of an audience of users or officials or executives, would it be better to say that OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice.org are compatible (in their support for and reliance on ODF)? Is this a promise that they are and will be kept that way? What is it you want the take-away to be that has you use the expression "odf files with 100% fidelity." What is meant to be reassuring about that? - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ian Lynch [mailto:ianrly...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 01:56 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; giffu...@tutopia.com Subject: Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice. On 30 June 2011 07:10, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Umm, 100% fidelity to/of what? I would love to understand the > qualifications that attach to that statement, and how whatever that is can > be demonstrated/verified. > > "[T]hey both operate on odf files with 100% fidelity." > If I save an odf file from OOo it will open exactly the same in LibO. If that isn't true than I would be interested to know where things break. (Fonts I think are a different issue) If it isn't 100% true it is pretty likely to be more true than filtering to either other applications that use odf or .doc etc. From an end user point of view all they will be concerned about is that files produced in OOo don't break in any way if imported into LibO or vice versa. Of course product divergence might make this less likely but at the moment I don't think there is a significant problem but I'm willing to be corrected. So do we scare the end user or give them more confidence? In terms of verification or otherwise, give me a file created in OOo that will not open correctly in LibO other than because the fonts are different on the two systems creating the files. If you prefer to say that OOo/LibO use the same file format so you are safe exchanging files between OOo and LibO, Ok, better to get rid of all mentions of technical stuff for end users in any case. What we need is to give reasonable confidence to the end user rather than obscure (to them) technical reasons why that might on some almost impossibly rare occasion not be the case. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On 30 June 2011 17:18, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > From this, is it more precise to say that OpenOffice.org and > LibreOffice.org provide 100% fidelity in interchange of documents with each > other when employing their common native format, ODF? > I'm happy with that, I wasn't thinking in a particular detailed way with the original post, it was really just saying hey this end user asked which product to choose. His main concerns I'm guessing would be are they similar to use (almost identical), can I exchange files the same from and between these products and others. (hopefully identically) and will any license differences affect me (probably not) And the presumption for that is the common code base which is their common > inheritance assures that, at least for now? > Yes - but I'm not a dev so I can't be 100% certain :-) Is it safe to conclude that this statement does not extend to anything about > completeness and quality of support for ODF beyond the fact that, all else > being equal, whatever the one produces and carries via the ODF format, the > other successfully consumes? And this is without qualification? > Yes again. Remember the average end user is not going to understand anything about odf, its extensibility or differences in implementation. I just think at this level too much information will only serve to confuse. If this statement were made in front of an audience of users or officials or > executives, would it be better to say that OpenOffice.org and > LibreOffice.org are compatible (in their support for and reliance on ODF)? > Is this a promise that they are and will be kept that way? > That is more difficult. I was simply thinking in terms of replying to an individual asking a question on a mailing list :-) What is it you want the take-away to be that has you use the expression "odf > files with 100% fidelity." What is meant to be reassuring about that? > I worded it badly, fell between two stools. Not technically precise enough for someone like yourself and probably unnecessary technical terms for the user I was intending it to be for. -- Ian Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ) www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940 The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales.
RE: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
Got it! Thanks for the clarification with regard to audience. My suggestion is to talk about them being compatible for must usage and not mention standards and metrics (like 100%). I agree completely on advice to individuals. I do the same with family members who only have simple needs for productivity software but need to be able to interchange files for volunteer work or something like that. Regards, - Dennis -Original Message- From: Ian Lynch [mailto:ianrly...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 02:25 To: dennis.hamil...@acm.org Cc: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; giffu...@tutopia.com Subject: Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice. On 30 June 2011 17:18, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: [ ... ] I wasn't thinking in a particular detailed way with the original post, it was really just saying hey this end user asked which product to choose. His main concerns I'm guessing would be are they similar to use (almost identical), can I exchange files the same from and between these products and others. (hopefully identically) and will any license differences affect me (probably not) [ ... ]
Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.
On 30/06/2011 Ian Lynch wrote: > If I save an odf file from OOo it will open exactly the same in LibO. > If that isn't true than I would be interested to know where things > break. Talking about 100% compatibility is probably exaggerated, since there are portions of the ODF standard (e.g. table styles, if I recall correctly) that are not implemented yet in either suite, and that could be implemented with different accuracy/priority in future. There are also cases of data loss originating from features that are currently implemented in LibreOffice only, see http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118037 But of course these are corner cases and, if not 100% compatibility, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice do indeed offer >99% compatibility. Regards, Andrea.
Discretionary ODF Provisions and Implementation Notes (was RE: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice.)
I think it is foolish to assign a metric to compatibility between OOO and LibreOffice, and particularly between either and ODF. If the 1% matters to me, it can be a show-stopper for my interoperability needs. The larger the take-up of *Office.org, the greater the number of folks impacted by such things, including deviations attributable to platform, configuration, and version of the software as well as the origin of documents that already exist. The variety of contingent factors is rather extensive. Adding to the degree of contingency is the extent of discretionary provisions in whatever ODF specification a program's support is based upon. There are places where provisions are loose if not altogether underspecified, where provisions are explicitly implementation-dependent in various ways, and where the conformance conditions are extremely flexible. The sharing of a reasonably-common *Office.org code base promises alignment of discretionary elements and even of extensions having nothing to do with requirements for ODF. There is a barrier of entry, so-to-speak, if the ways discretionary matters are handled are not made explicit so other producers of ODF-supporting software can choose to align or at least to deviate knowingly. I am not talking about the code being available for inspection, I am talking about explicit statements that can be understood without having to examine an implementation. That is what provides for independently-derived interoperably-usable implementations based on an open standard. The work invested in arriving at such arrangements can also lead to valuable feedback to the perfection of the evolving specifications for ODF. One way to accomplish this is to provide implementation notes that explicitly account for the conditions of support for ODF provisions and any deviations that also exist. I have only seen this attempted by one producer. Although that particular provision could be done much better, I find it remarkable that this is the only case where it appears to be done at all. The idea is to be accountable for discretionary matters in a way that adopters of software can make informed choices about which products are suitable in a particular interoperability situation, including support for already-existing documents for which continual conversion is not an option. This is also a way for a development team to be mindful of what their discretionary choices are and how evolution of their code base needs to account for what those choices have been. There is an opportunity for Apache OpenOffice.org to raise the bar in this respect. And how can one provide a reference implementation without such an account of all the discretionary and contingent factors? I have heard it said that no desired quality of software is achievable in the absence of a concrete measure for it. Implementation notes are a way of assuring whatever the desired quality of ODF support is to be, along with the discretionary provisions that are part of that achievement. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@openoffice.org] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 07:38 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Differences between OOO and LibreOffice. On 30/06/2011 Ian Lynch wrote: > If I save an odf file from OOo it will open exactly the same in LibO. > If that isn't true than I would be interested to know where things > break. Talking about 100% compatibility is probably exaggerated, since there are portions of the ODF standard (e.g. table styles, if I recall correctly) that are not implemented yet in either suite, and that could be implemented with different accuracy/priority in future. There are also cases of data loss originating from features that are currently implemented in LibreOffice only, see http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118037 But of course these are corner cases and, if not 100% compatibility, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice do indeed offer >99% compatibility. Regards, Andrea.
