Talk:NeoOffice

Name change

I realize I'm jumping the gun a little, as there hasn't been a release yet under the revised name, but the developers have announced [1] that they're formally dropping the "/J" (since the "/C" version has long been irrelevant). Future releases will be simply "NeoOffice". Tverbeek 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Update screenshot?

The screenshot in the article is quite old. Those of the 1.2 version look better and are, of course, more up-to-date. I suggest using one of the images on this page: http://neowiki.sixthcrusade.com/index.php/NeoOffice_Screenshots 202.162.85.116 23:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OpenOffice.org for Mac (native) have been stopped the development —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.188.240.73 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC-7)

“Upstreaming” bug fixes

The article states:

Versions of OpenOffice.org starting with 2.0 are licensed only under the LGPL, but the authors of NeoOffice have stated their intention to continue releasing all versions under the standard GPL. This prevents the bug fixes and new features' code in NeoOffice from being used in OpenOffice.

While this is accurate to an extent (OOo developers can't simply read NeoOffice code and take bug fixes that way), in practice many bug fixes in shared code have been submitted to OpenOffice.org directly (see this message to the porting mailing list) or more recently to the Linux distros' ooo-build integration mechanism (see the quote from Novell's Michael Meeks in this release).

Nevertheless, the license issue remains a point of contention in some camps.

—66.245.102.116

Citations missing

This article lacks full citations. See also: Inline citations - Hyperlinking/embedded links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Wild Falcon (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC-7)

Download links hidden or missing on NeoOffice page

After trying to find a way to download NeoOffice, on what is presumably the NeoOffice cite, I'm giving up. The download link seems non-existent or hidden. At best, the links have been made less than obvious.

Try here. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 01:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NeoOffice 3.0 is released

NeoOffice 3.0 is, to the best of my knowledge, now officially released (not only for early-access members). Should somebody incorporate this into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumblethunder (talk • contribs) 08:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the title box and the history. Feel free to add or fix anything I missed. -Royalguard11(T) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is NeoOffice still active?

Is NeoOffice still active, or has it been discontinued and/or merged with LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice or elsewhere? All of the information in this article and in the discussion is at least a couple of years old. Dovi (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I see, there wasn't any real progress lately. I didn't heard/read anything related. mabdul 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Other apps under the "NeoOffice" name

I notice the two developers have been using the name to sell apparently unrelated apps for invoicing and timecard on the Mac App Store, as well as the original NeoOffice app. The article should probably be updated to reflect this. ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Though it probably doesn't help for Wikipedia-quality referencing that the third-party coverage of NeoOffice hovers around zero ... - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but wouldn't that imply it's non-notable? ClareTheSharer (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably. OTOH, if they're reusing the brand for other purposes it should be mentioned ... the edges of Wikipedia epistemology get tricky - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

NeoOffice, GPL, and Free Software

@ZackTheCardshark (talk · contribs) Regarding this edit: Yes, they sell it, please read the GPL: they do not permit to sell software as longas you provide the source + the license and thus NeoOffice is still open source.

Not nice, somehow seldom, but still valid.

~~

Yes, the source is open, but it's not free. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be "free" versus "free". It's certainly free software, which is what the category is about - David Gerard (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, now I've looked at the cat description, it appears this does meet the definition. May I suggest that the category is misleadingly named and should be amended to something less ambiguous? ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Good luck with that! The open source movement was started 20 years ago to address exactly that ambiguity and when I last checked rms was still describing it as wicked. ClareTheSharer (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but though I've a higher-than-average awareness of this area, "free presentation software" seems removed enough from "free software" that the latter's meaning didn't occur to me looking at the former. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Apache OpenOffice

Hi, there. I invite everyone to participate in the polite ongoing discussion. --Entalpia2 (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Apache OpenOffice. --Entalpia2 (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Commercial fork?

Under the GPL? Is it possible in the first place? 85.193.235.207 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)