incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Lauder>
Subject Re: LinuxTag 2012 Berlin
Date Wed, 30 May 2012 22:39:36 GMT
> On 5/30/12 3:10 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
> >> Hi,
> > 
> > Hi Juergen,
> > 

Please don't see this as a criticism directed at you, this is simply a 
constructive critique of the content and suggestions for future interactions.  
Thanks is due for doing the presentation in any case.

> > Please excuse if this seems a little abrupt, but I want to the message to
> > be precise.
> > 
> >> last week I gave a talk about OpenOffice on the LinuxTag conference in
> >> Berlin.
> >> 
> >> The attendance was moderate and I got the bad first slot in the morning
> >> 10:00am after the LinuxTag party on Thursday ;-) It was an interesting
> >> interruption of my vacation.
> >> 
> >> My main goal was to express that OpenOffice was never dead and the
> >> project have found a new home at Apache. I highlighted our achievements
> >> and of course our release as important milestone. Presenting our nice
> >> download numbers was also a pleasure for me ;-)
> > 
> > We should stop apologising for being who we are.
> nobody apologized for that and I simply pointed out the facts as I see it.

My apologies, after burbling about being precise I use a metaphorical 
statement.  :/

The point that I tried to make (badly) is that every time we consume our time 
and energy discussing our relationship with LO we reinforce a view that we 
exist only as an adjunct to LO. The subtext in any such conversation is 
"Sorry, but............"

Anyway ignore  

> > We should not use any speaking opportunity allowed us to talk about / put
> > down /  argue about LO.
> I don't have argued against LibreOffice, I respect it and pointed out
> that the user will decide in the long term.

But you were talking about it.  That's wasted energy, let's confine ourselves 
to speaking about AOO

> > We do not need to mention the rumours of the project's demise, our
> > actions give lie to that, mentioning it merely gives the rumour
> > recognition that it does not deserve.
> well the abstract of my talk was submitted several month ago and I made
> clear that I will clarify some misunderstandings.
> I haven't put too much pressure on this topic and simply highlighted
> more the success of AOO.
> I was definitly the first and the last time where I have expressed the
> difference between both from my point of view.


> > We have had a release!  Even to the most nontechy folk that is proof of
> > life.
> agree and I have highlighted this a lot ;-)
> > Let's not mention it ever again.
> > 
> >> I also expressed my view that
> >> 
> >> = Apache OpenOffice
> >> go-oo = LibreOffice
> >> 
> >> based on the facts that we own all rights on the name and the domains,
> >> the source code. And we have reserved and migrated the whole infra
> >> structure... And on you can see the relation to
> >> LibreOffice.
> >> 
> >> And that not the complete community have moved to LibreOffice.
> >> 
> >> But I have pointed out that it is my personal view ;-)
> >> 
> >> I also pointed out that we don't want to compete with LibreOffice (also
> >> my personal opinion) and that our main focus and goal is to provide a
> >> good, stable, high quality, free and intuitive office application.
> >> 
> >> A further point was that I tried to express that our users will decide
> >> in the future which office they will prefer and that we will focus on
> >> our users and their real demand.
> >> 
> >> Based on the discussion after my talk it is clear that many people don't
> >> understand the split anymore and would appreciate if both projects would
> >> work together. But that is a political question that can't be answered
> >> easily. I think with the Apache license we provide a possible basement
> >> but the license question is much more complicate for some people.
> > 
> > The main reason that the post discussion revolved around the LO/AOO
> > relationship is because it sounds like that was what your talk was about.
> I don't think so but I think it is natural that this discussion comes up
> again and again. And I haven't said that I have discussed the details on
> this topic with anybody.
> > If asked then the answer short and to the point: "We have different
> > licenses and we wish them well!"    That's it... no more.  We should not
> > be discussing the detail.  If people need to know, both licenses are
> > published and discussed on a million places on the web.  People can
> > research it there.
> > 
> > We have different names now, neither project is the original, Sun is
> > gone!  LO is no more a SUSE project than AOO is an IBM project.  Both
> > projects have corporate members.  That's all.
> well that is your personal opinion but not mine. For me it is clear that
> AOO = The fact that the project moved to Apache doesn't
> change it. And we still download the product from the same website as
> before, install it in the same directory, the visible name change is
> currently a mix and we support both.
> If a project decides to rename it's name it is still the same project,
> isn't it?

The original project was funded by SUN, we don't have that any more.  The old 
project would never have IBM contributing.  No matter how you look at it, it 
is a different beast entirely, argument could be made, and is constantly, that 
LO is closer to the spirit of the original OOo because it retains the LGPL.  
The point I'm making is that even bringing up LO in any conversation is giving 
that argument credence.
The ownership of the original source code owned by SUN/Oracle was granted to 
this project along with the trademarks and so on.  Of that there is no 

The merits or otherwise of this can be debated over a few beers and probably 
will be for years to come, but it should not be part of the greater 
conversation. It doesn't need to be and we simply demonstrate our own 
insecurities by going back to it.

> > We need to move the conversation away from this nonproductive discussion.
> > 
> > People need to know:
> > 
> > The AOO community is growing and highly active
> I have expressed this a lot
> > We have had our first release
> I have highlighted this
> > Yes our downloads are lower than historical but we did that with
> > virtually zero publicity
> but not bad and I highlighted this as well
> > We are very close to graduation to being an Apache Top Level Project
> > We now have Symphony code moved over
> I talked about this as well ;-)
> > We will probably have a couple more incremental releases before 4.0
> > 
> > We have sourceforge onside and other distribution channels are being
> > looked at.
> > 
> > 4.0 will be killer!
> > 
> > Those are the messages we need to go out.
> > 
> > We do not define this project by LO.  We can be a little grateful to LO
> > for keeping OOo and ODF out there in the public eye and maintaining our
> > brand recognition, but that does not extend to allowing their brand to
> > intrude into our conversation.
> nobody or better I don't do it, I simply pointed out my based on facts.
> And again it was the first time that I did it public in talk and it was
> of course the last time.
> > No more please.  We need to be on message
> I am interested to hear from you how you spread the message, where and
> when.

Me? I would like to share the message at a Microsoft Partners conference, at a 
Government procurement agencies conference, at any Educators conference, local 
Chambers of Commerce, Any Corporate Board Room and so on.  
Linux Tag is interesting and I will advocate at next years LCA in Canberra, 
but this market impact is reflected in the present proportion of downloads. 
Yes, these are great sources for developer recruitment but the debate then is 
not about brands but AL2 vs GPL, 

My target is endusers and enduser organisations including enterprise users.  

Either way the message needs to be consistent and never about anyone else.

Right now it's muddled and that is acceptable because the project is still 
finding it's feet.  I don't however, want to have a fixed presentation that is 
the only one that can be used.  What I'd like to see is people using something 
like the above headlines that have been agreed to by consensus with their own 
personal style but with a totally AOO focus.

We carefully vet and worry about press releases and interviews but people can 
do a presentation anywhere to any audience without review.  One gets asked or 
is provided with a slot, to speak about AOO because one has a standing in the 
project.  The view that is then presented no matter what we say about 
"Personal View Only", becomes an AOO view. 

So care is needed not to let discussion/debate on LO pollute the conversation.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, 7-Bit, 0 bytes)
View raw message