openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays
Date Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:46:36 GMT
I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy

Take a look at the lovely new page:

Some choice bits of distortion:

"In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and trademarks to the
Apache Software Foundation, unilaterally relicensing all contributions
under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM (to whom Oracle had
contractual obligations concerning the code). Most development is now
done by IBM employees. On 18 October 2012 Apache OpenOffice graduated
from the Apache Incubator."

Nice conspiracy theory slipped in their by Gerard, eh?


"With the donation to Apache, development slowed while the foundation
moved the codebase and infrastructure to its servers. Apache
OpenOffice 3.4 was released on 8 May 2012. The work done in the
thirteen months since the 3.4 beta was mainly license
changes, removing or replacing as much code, including fonts, under
licenses unacceptable to Apache as possible. Language support was
considerably reduced, to 15 languages from a 2009 peak of over 110.
Java is no longer bundled with the installer. 3.4.1, released 23
August 2012, added five more languages."

Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor to

"LO as successor

Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's
about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to
support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a
rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO
is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits,
IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come
out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like
Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be
the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and
it'll be appropriate to make this article all about and
make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28,
1 January 2013 (UTC)"

These are some of the same misstatements as in the article
coming out later this week, btw.

Is that what they are stooping to now?  Are these the words of a
neutral Wikipedia editor?  Is that how they work?  It seems rather odd
to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free hand
in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page.  Quite odd.  I'm
disappointed, but not surprised.


View raw message