Talk:OpenOffice.org/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Rename

I suggest rename this article to Apache OpenOffice, cause OpenOffice has been rebranded to Apache OpenOffice.--Rezonansowy (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See "Requested move" section above. tl;dr The other suggestion is to make a separate article for AOO and for the old OOo, which is how nl:wp does it. Either way, there's no rush and we can wait until AOO 4.0 (the first version with significant new work) is out properly and discuss it then - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Market Share

Some of the numbers in the "market share" section have become extremely dated. They are dated almost to the point where I wonder if the section has any meaning. I won't be able to update this section, or would even know how to get better data, so adding a request to update this section. It is a fairly important topic, as a google search for "openoffice market share" brings this page to the top of the results, with a "Jump to Market share" link directly to that section. Removing all data prior to 2010 may be sufficient for a quick fix. Jeffhoy (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

They're relevant for the history (and would be good to have around if/when the article is split up per above) - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Weirdness in the article view statistics

Last 90 days. Why the trough in April and May? (Similar trough for LibreOffice, though not nearly as pronounced. I see LibreOffice gets similar page view rates to this page, and so could probably do with a similar severe editorial cleanup.) - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And your point is? --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That I was wondering how many readers the article typically has, and was wondering at the strange drop in interest - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Basically I've been reading back through the last three or four years of a large pile of IT news sites that occasionally do actual journalism, in English and German (since SO/OOo was a German project, and LO is too). I think I hit everything that could reasonably be called a WP:RS on the subject of OpenOffice. I should list some potentially-interesting sources that don't quite fit into the present article ... I'll do that later. In the meantime, does anything appear seriously questionable or uncited at this stage? - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Continuity

Yes - There is ~no continunity between OOo and AOO:

• different license
• different development team and different main sponsors
• different version control system
• different gouvernance
• different name and trademark (even dropping the .org)

essentially the only thing AOO and OOo share is the codebase, but so do OOo and LibreOffice, OOo and Symphony, OOo and go-oo. AOO is no different from other follow-up projects. 84.46.78.210 (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• "different development team and different main sponsors" - really? It's still IBM and Oracle.
  • IBM didnt contribute to OOo in a relevant way. The main sponsor was Sun/Oracles team in Hamburg and that was dissolved. IBM hired at most half a dozen of those back, but none of the old infrastructure or organizational stucture remained. --84.46.78.210 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• "different name and trademark" - happened before, too
• "different version control system" - some "uninteresting" internal stuff, not very special for the end user.
• "different gouvernance" - see above

My remarks from the RM !vote above still stand: there is still no major release by Apache. At the moment there were only minor tweaks and IP clearance. mabdul 10:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If that is the case, the article should focus on the historic OOo project, not the current AOO one, which then is only a sidenote on this topic. --84.46.78.210 (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to either

• move the current page to Apache OpenOffice or
• move the current page to OpenOffice.org and create a new page Apache OpenOffice. The Lemma OpenOffice should be a disambiguation page to OpenOffice.org, Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice, et al. ;-) Echinacin35 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's leave it until AOO 4.0 and see if there's enough material from that to meaningfully separate it out - at present I'm not sure that's the most helpful thing for the reader, but it strikes me as a good idea if there's enough for a standalone article - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

AOO 4.0 is out. A new Apache Open Office article should be started. This article should discuss the classic OpenOffice.org and its history under Sun, through the Oracle purchase and its ultimate consequences under Sun, through the Oracle purchase and its ultimate consequences. Semsi Paco Virchow (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Apache also released 3.4.x versions. Personally I'd find it awkward to make an article split for software based on changed management instead of new major versions. An OpenOffice 4 article would make more sense IMO. It could discuss the changed management as well and the OpenOffice 3.4 section here could just have a See also to the OO4 article.

Articles for individual major versions of software are not uncommon on WP. See MS Office for example. The OO4 article you'll write just needs to be long enough to justify a separate article. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Moribund?

I think we can securely remove the phrases that OpenOffice is "moribund". This may have been reported in some media but such reports aren't necessarily true. After all, version 4.0.0 was released just this morning! And who says that the major effort was moved to LibreOffice? --Maxl (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

For a comparison of commit statistics look here https://www.ohloh.net/p/compare?project_0=Apache+OpenOffice&project_1=LibreOffice under "12 Month" and "30 day" statistics. (Yes, the AOO stats are included in the LO stats, so feel free to subtract as appropriate.) 217.71.246.7 (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

So does the dictionary now define "moribund" as "having fewer commits than LibreOffice"? +1 to using common definitions of English words. OpenOffice is releasing new versions, community is growing. We have a NPOV issue here. 50.138.228.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I should say that's the case. First, in the list posted by the IP the contributions of OpenOffice are only listed from 2 years ago while OpenOffice has existed since 2002 (11 years). On the other hand the list says contributions to LibreOffice started almost 13 years ago when the first version of LibreOffice was released only 2 years ago! And then, if you look at the bottom of the list you'll see that OpenOffice contributed more than 3 times the amount of code lines than LibreOffice did. The OpenOffice people do the basic work. LibreOffice is simply a branch of OpenOffice. They do some polishing or whatsoever, do their own user interface and their own icons. I don't say LibreOffice is bad. Of course it isn't. My point is that the list from which that line in the article is derived is partly misleading and has partly been misinterpreted. By the way, does anyone have a special interest to dub OpenOffice moribund (maybe in order to weaken competition), or why has this line been posted in the article, and then at such a prominent place? I think that line is clearly POV despite the unusual number of citations. --Maxl (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"The OpenOffice people do the basic work. LibreOffice is simply a branch of OpenOffice." This is a common IBM-originated marketing point for AOO, but is not borne out by the numbers; LO 4.1 release notes note ~13% of commits between LO 4.0 and LO 4.1 coming from @apache.org, not anything like most of it. (I would guess LO noted this to quell this specific false claim.) I recall a previous IP tried to add this claim as well. I'm also quite unconvinced that "oh they finally got a release out" suddenly means it's bursting with life; note that the date slipped about six months. But 4.0.0 is out, let's see what the press verdict resolves as - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What LibreOffice claims about itself is irrelevant to the claim that OpenOffice is moribund. By the same standard that is applied on Wikipiedia to any other open source product (or commercial software product for that matter) do we call something moribund when it has worked steadily toward a release, released the software, booked 50 million downloads in the last year, and has a development mailing list with over 1000 posts per month. If "moribund" is used to describe such a project it is an idiosyncratic use of the word that is pushing a POV. 50.138.228.216 (talk)

Document Foundation is LibreOffice. Therefore we can safely assume that the text you linked, @ David, is biased towards LibreOffice. Whereas there may have been more contributions from Document Foundation, the figures from the list mentioned above still state that OpenOffice committed at least 3 times as much code lines as LibreOffice. If there are fewer contributions from OpenOffice people the average contribution from these is obviously much larger than that from LibreOffice contributors. The number of contributions is not all there is. The size also counts. Also, I believe the reason for the prolonged product cycle OpenOffice had was the way Oracle dealt with some people involved in OpenOffice which you can read in the article. First, after they had bought Sun Microsystems and, with it, the OpenOffice project, they "purged" the team (in fact, they seem to have kicked out a lot of people with independent minds) and, thus, in fact forced the creation of the Document Foundation as an independent body. And then they handed the whole project to Apache foundation. So not much could happen for quite a while during the double transition. This double transition from Sun Microsystems to Oracle to Apache along with Oracle's less than helpful handling of matters may be a major reason for a (temporary) drop in contributions to OpenOffice. That's, however, no reason to call the whole project "moribund". And I don't think there is any need to wait for a "press verdict". I believe the matter is quite clear. --Maxl (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've removed. Even if the statement was ever accurate in the past (highly debatable) it clearly is not given today's release. If substantiated by any new reliable source, written in light of current status, then we can reconsider. 50.138.228.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! But don't forget to sign your contributions on the discussion page! :) --Maxl (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Restored well-referenced statements - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You obviously don't read what people write here! --Maxl (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since Ohloh was brought up earlier in an irrelevant way, I'd suggest using it in a relevant way. They rate open source projects with respect to activity level, looking at commits, number of contributors, files changed, lines added, etc. They rate OpenOffice as having "Very High Activity". I think we need to look at the removed passage like a claim that a certain volcano is dormant. The fact that the volcano erupts today invalidates the claim that it is dormant, no matter how many sources you had yesterday claiming it was dormant. New facts trump old sources in that case. 50.138.228.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was referring to Ohloh only in response to the statement about development effort being moved to LO, i.e. in a very relevant way, namely showing that there is much more development going on in LibreOffice as measured by lines of code and commits in the last 12 months (I specifically mentioned 12/1 month stats as the overall ones are skewed for obvious reasons). The ohloh statistic simply show that LO has (1) More committers ("larger community") and (2) More contributions (commits and LOC). Finally in the 12 month stats AOO is shown as having "decreasing" commits, and looking at the following page you will see number of commits and number of committers in AOO is decreasing https://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice . I haven't and won't comment on the "moribund" description as that isn't something I am qualified to judge on given the commit statistics -- I'm not sure why you're seeing this as an attack when I am simply linking to statistics to demonstrate the statement that "development effort has moved to LO". 217.71.246.7 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that AOO artificially inflated their Ohloh stats by adding website changes to what gets listed there; LO only lists code commits. AOO's are still on a notable decline. The Black Knight can shout "I'm not dead yet!" but third-party observers still note the absence of three limbs - David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that you don't seem to have any proof for your above statemenmt. AND it is worth noting that you still choose to ignore what people are writing in this discussion. --Maxl (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The "moribund" statement is objectively wrong as proven by the 4.0 release. At most the paragraph could be rewritten that to outsiders the transition period to Apache appeared as stagnation but nothing more. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@David Gerard: yes, the commit rate is decreasing, but there are still enough commits that prevent us (now) to say that the project is 'moribund'. Hence, IBM is investing enough money (and time) to improve the project. Check other OSS projects at enwp - many projects don't include any statement like this, although they would deserve it much more. mabdul 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is extremely strongly-worded, and most of the references precede the release of AOO 4.0. But this is a silly argument to be having while we still haven't resolved the major problem of the article, which is that it needs split. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

NeoOffice

By the way - NeoOffice needs a serious polish and update, if anyone's interested. It looks like this article used to - one of those articles that accretes a sentence at a time, never actually having a coherent version - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles for the components (Writer, etc)

There were individual articles for Writer, Draw, Math, etc. I've redirected all except Calc and Base back to here - the articles contained no new information over the main article, and I'm not entirely convinced they're separately noteworthy in any case - we're talking about different UIs presented by soffice.exe. The Calc and Base articles have some info this one doesn't, but I would suggest merging those in and redirecting the articles here.

Does anyone seriously object? To the point where they'd fix up those articles to clearly demonstrate individual notability of each component? - David Gerard (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Merged the Calc and Base articles too - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I also folded in Public Documentation License and Fontwork. Considered folding in Universal Network Objects, but that's both a longer article and more current. Are there any other tiny offshoot articles that are unlikely ever to grow? - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Derivatives diagram

Cheers to @ScotXW: for the cladistic chart. It adds useful information. The two problems I can see are (a) it's incomplete - there's a lot of other forks and merges to add (Go-oo and Symphony at the least) (b) it's a bit ugly. But both of these are fixable ;-) I've added it as a link to {{OpenOffice}} as well - David Gerard (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've redone the diagram a little more clearly, without the licenses and without the fair-use logos: File:StarOffice major derivatives.svg. It's a quick and dodgy SVG done in Inkscape and could do with polishing up. I think covering SO, OOo, Go-OO, Symphony, LO and AOO should cover it. I haven't added the image map yet - David Gerard (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Polished reimplementation, where dates are (approximately) according to scale. Imperfect, feel free to fix. I didn't put in every code transfer, just significant version descent. Not sure if Go-oo 2.3.0 counts as more of a change from OOo than ooo-build did, but it is when it declared itself - David Gerard (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Major deployments

With this being about historical OOo, the major deployments may be worth detailing properly here, when we can find third-party refs - David Gerard (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I note also that ja:OpenOffice.org lists a pile - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Added from ja:. Other languages will be worth checking over, if anyone's bored. (Anyone?) - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding peer review

Nobody cares about GA nominations, so I'll likely withdraw it and put in an FAC directly. In the meantime, peer review may help quality - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/OpenOffice.org/archive1 - helpful suggestions re: lead section and discontinued derivatives have been applied - is the lead section still OK with everyone? - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Good Articles nomination

I've nominated the article for GA. GA basically hasn't enough reviewers, so ask your uninvolved colleagues to review ;-) Any polishing we can do, please do - David Gerard (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing GA nom after three weeks untouched, because nobody really cares about GA. I'll put up the FA nomination shortly - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

moved from Talk:Apache OpenOffice

I'm a bit surprised that we have two articles: Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org

The code and trademarks have all been handed over to Apache. The OpenOffice.org article really just refers to previous versions of Apache OpenOffice under a different brand name and ownership. But the project and product is the same. It's just transition to different owners.

[www.OpenOffice.org www.OpenOffice.org], for example, hosts Apache OpenOffice. The two are one and the same, so I propose a merge. --Tóraí (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The tl;dr is that the article with both in one place was very lumpy (lots of "OOo did this, but AOO does this") because the projects operate differently in almost every way; the separated articles are much more coherent than the lumpy version that tried to put them both together. I'd strongly suggest reading the last couple of archives of this talk page as well as the talk page itself. That the two are "one and the same" is itself a POV, which is addressed in OpenOffice.org#Apache_OpenOffice - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been a week with no discussion despite a talk-page ping to Tóraí, so I've removed the merge tag - David Gerard (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dead project?

So let´s talk. Who regards it as a fork? And who can say if it is only one project or two subsequent projects? I mean, that it can say only the "owner" and operator of project. The "owner" of OpenOffice.org as well as Apache OpenOffice projects is Apache. And Apache feels both the Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org as one project and product. --Palu (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

See the last sentence of OpenOffice.org#Apache_OpenOffice - AOO asserts unbroken continuity, there is significant third-party dispute. In technical matters, a first-party cite may be conclusive; but this is a political matter, a he-said-she-said matter, so third-party citations from WP:RS are needed, and have been provided - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the hatnote from "similarly-named Apache project" to "descendant Apache project", which is accurate and should be acceptable to either viewpoint - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody besides David regards this as a fork. However, he apparently has so much time on his hands, he reverts any common sense edit and does not respond to common Wikipedia practice to not make separate articles for software that just happened to have a change in management. I already suggested to use common WP practice and make an article of the 3.x major version and one for 4.x. He just went ahead with his weird agenda… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't separate the articles, as I've noted to you already. Separating them has been a live issue on this page for quite some time. Merely repeating an incorrect statement does not make it true. You've been asked before to please desist in making personal attacks on other editors - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

An academic source that calls AOO a "branch" but also a "successor", and talks of the three as separate things: [1] - academic-quality sources should be even higher on the RS scale than press coverage. (That article's an interesting one on comparative vitality in AOO and LO and open-source projects in general.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014 merge discussion

Just to chip in, in my view Apache OpenOffice is a continuation of OpenOffice.org. It's no different in my view than when Oracle took over the project from Sun. Apache took over the project from Oracle. The whole sundry was handed over to Apache from Oracle and Apache continued it from there in their own fashion. A comparable example is when Adobe handed over Flex to Apache (see Adobe Flex) or any other example of Apache taking over a project.

I proposed a merge of Apache OpenOffice and this article in October but I was involved in a separate dispute with David at the time and got a sense that this was another hot topic for him, so I didn't progress it. How do KAMiKAZOW and Palu feel about a merge? --Tóraí (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more like the various forks of Linux, and we do currently have multiple separate articles: Apache OpenOffice, StarOffice LibreOffice, NeoOffice and this one. I'm still opposed to a merge and there are a sufficient number of differences to merit keeping them all separate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí - have you read through previous discussion on the topic? There are valid arguments both ways, but I note that both articles flow much better with the articles separate - it's pretty clear that a merged article would have a great deal of "OOo did this, but AOO does this"; operationally, they're quite distinct in quite a lot of ways. I also note that almost all the cites that have been offered in the past for "continuation" are first-party, not third-party, and that contentious he said-she said matters generally need to go to third party RSes. There's a reason why almost every phrase in this article has multiple citations - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The same can be said for all projects transferred to the Apache Foundation (or any project that changes ownership generally). We don't go and create a new article when it happens (see below). What makes this article different to all others? --Tóraí (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not like a fork of Linux. It's is an example of an open-source project being transferred from one project owner to the Apache Foundation. This happens all the time and we don't create a new article for it.

I've given the example of Flex. We don't have two articles: Adobe Flex vs. Apache Flex. Neither do we have PhoneGap vs. Apache Cordova. Or Subversion (software) vs. Apache Subversion. We don't have CloudStack vs. Apache CloudStack. We don't have Google Wave vs. Apache Wave. And so on.

All of these project went through the same process as OpenOffice. Those articles were just renamed and continued. So why do we have OpenOffice.org vs Apache OpenOffice? --Tóraí (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the past discussion? Can you address all points raised therein? These are not fresh points you are raising - David Gerard (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Wikipedia precedent for handling articles on projects donated to the Apache Foundation was discussed earlier. The issues raised in past discussion here apply to all such articles on projects donated to the Apache Foundation. My point is to ask why this article is treated differently to all other such articles.

Can you link to where Wikipedia precedent on handling projects donated to the Apache Foundation was discussed previously? And why this article is treated differently. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not Apache-specific, but note e.g. that Santa Cruz Operation, Caldera (company) and SCO Group are separate articles despite corporate continuity from second to third and claimed continuity by third from first. Being Apache doesn't make a super-special difference. And that example comes from past discussion on this very talk page; can you please address the issues raised in previous discussions? You're coming across as avoiding doing your homework here - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that Wikipedia precedent on handling projects donated to the Apache Foundation wasn't discussed previously? Great. Let's discuss that now. There's no need to rehash previous discussions.

So, what makes OpenOffice different from say, Flex, or CloudStack, or PhoneGap, or any other project donated to the Apache Foundation? Why is this the one article on a project donated to the Apache Foundation that's out of step with precedence? --Tóraí (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. So what you're saying is because other Apache articles were merged this one should too? Let's look at your examples and compare.

1. Apache Flex is a product and was never forked and never existed separately. It is not a long article.
2. Apache CloudStack is also a product that was never forked and never existed separately. Cloud.com keeps some of the product for their own use, but their version is not independently notable. It is a short article and can deal with a discussion of both topic.s
3. PhoneGap is the same issue.

What we have here is a product that was a merging of several products and that has spawned multiple derivative products, the most recent going to Apache. Each derivative product is sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Merging this article with the Apache article would make it too long (see Wikipedia:Article size). Leaving them as they are but providing links between them is the most appropriate way to deal with the subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash old arguments about whether the Apache version is a fork or not. I don't think it would be beneficial.

What we have here is a product that was a merging of several products and that has spawned multiple derivative products, the most recent going to Apache.

PhoneGap was forked plenty. Same with Subversion. I don't see what that has to do with anything, though. And these projects handed over to Apache existed separately beforehand. Just look at the page histories. This really is no different to any other.

So what you're saying is because other Apache articles were merged this one should too? No. The other articles weren't merged. They were simply continued and renamed if/when Apache's branding became more commonly known. In the case of OpenOffice, a new article was created for the "Apache version". That was unusual.

Merging this article with the Apache article would make it too long (see Wikipedia:Article size).

This is spurious. The two articles have a naturally high overlap (since they are the same software). A merged article would not be the sum of their current sizes.

However, I do think that what's done is done. It's also clear that people are attached to this article as is (I don't understand why).

The mere existence of this article doesn't both me much. The most serious matter, I think, is the decision to move OpenOffice (disambiguation) to OpenOffice rather than have OpenOffice point to the current version of the software. (David's worry about us promulgating some trademark infringement by doing so is none of our business.)

If Open Office was redirected to Apache OpenOffice then, as far as I'm concerned, that would effectively put it in line with other products donated to Apache. This article could be kept and people could see it as a distinct antecedent of Apache OpenOffice or as a "history of"-type article according to their preference. --Tóraí (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So you ask a question, and then essentially say that it doesn't matter anyhow. And then you change your request.

The guideline for primary topics is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Your argument that it should point to "the current version of the software" doesn't hold any water in relation to this guideline, particularly the second half of it.

Currently OpenOffice is a disambiguation page because there is no obvious primary topic. There are five links under computing, one link under other, and two see also entries. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

For me is not important to merge articles. From my point of view is more important dont say lies or inaccuracies in this article. As inaccuracies and lies i consider: "Development status Discontinued" - no it isnt, it is still running in Apache laboratory; "Final release: 3.3 / 25 January 2011; 3 years ago" - no, final is 4.0.1 (now); "Active successor projects include Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and NeoOffice." - no, Apache OO is not a successor of OOO, Apache OO is OOO; etc etc etc. The end of OpenOffice.org and start of new Apache OpenOffice is artificial construct of english Wikipedia, not real truth. I'm sorry about it. --Palu (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not a lie Palu, but I can understand why you think it's misleading. This project has stopped development, but when it was active it was quite important. The final release of this product was 3.3. However, if you'd like us to elaborate on that in the article, I'm sure we could.

If you mean that the source code lives on in a new product, then you'd be right, but don't confuse that new product with this old one. They're as different from each other as other derivatives of the original software are from this product.

If you had a access to pull sources from the old project, would you still be able to pull them from the current head? The current source can be retrieved by calling svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openoffice/trunk aoo according to this. But older versions were at svn checkout svn://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/trunk per here. And in the between the first and current version, the project changed code repositories to mercurial. "Ownership" of the source repositories and who decides what gets done and when makes a big difference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This sort of do-da about SVN is the kind of OR that has got us here. We need to stick with RS per policy. --Tóraí (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm clearly not being understood by you, but acting like its original research because you don't understand isn't particularly helpful either. The reliable sources are simple: They're all different products. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Tóraí and Palu. There never was a consensus for the structure of the articles. A tiny minority just went ahead and created that mess. Both David and Walter are impossible to work with but I don't have the time to correct this mess (and they'd revert that anyway…). It's a fact that it's not Wikipedia policy to create new articles for software just because management changes (or because the source code is hosted under a new domain – if that was the case every application that moved from SourceForge to GitHub would need a new article…. It it policy to create articles for new major versions if a combined article is unwieldy. However arguments and even simple democracy (right now it's 3 against 2) once again bounce off these people. I will not argue with them any longer. My stance is clear and will not change. Should reason prevail at some point, I'd be glad to help to transform the current mess into articles articles for each major OO version. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I asked the question and it did't look like anyone could answer it. But, rather than labouring the point, and making more of a fuss, I'm happy to live with the sitatuion and move on as best we can.

Yes, "Apache OpenOffice" is the primary topic. When folk refer to OpenOffice now, that's what they mean. They don't mean version <=3.3. Apache OpenOffice is the software that's at www.openoffice.org and that's the branding of the software that going to remain there. OpenOffice.org <= 3.3 is described on that website now as "legacy" software (see). OpenOffice == Apache OpenOffice, now and into the future.

Like Palu, I'm also worried about how the situation is presented here. However, that's a matter easily (even if, I expect, laboriously) resolved through rigorous enforcement of verifiability. --Tóraí (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet you haven't provided any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Tóraí, you have completely failed to address the extensive references in the article itself. See the section that notes that AOO (a single first party) claims unbroken continuation, but multiple third-party RSes, including academic ones, consider it a separate project or even a fork. I brought this up already and you appear to be simply ignoring it - but you can't ignore the RSes if you're going to claim that verifiability is relevant (which of course it is). "Verifiability" doesn't mean "take whatever the first party says about itself and ignore multiple third party RSes" - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah ... great minds, eh? I've opened a thread below. --Tóraí (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference checks

See also related discussion from January, 2013. --Tóraí (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for "discontinued" etc.

There's surprisingly sparse sourcing in the article for an issue that has generated so much heat on this talk page. As far as I can see there is only one reference used to support two referenced statements to the effect that the project has been closed/discontinued. (I've ignored unreferenced statements.)

Is that correct?

• Article: "The project was closed by Oracle Corporation, the then-owner of Sun, in April 2011."
• Article: "Development was discontinued in April 2011..."
• Source: "Oracle Corporation today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office." (ref)

This source doesn't support the statement that the software has been discontinued or that the project has been closed, with the exception of an Oracle-offered commercial version.

Is there a source that says this software project (or development of it) has been discontinued? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Try this reference in the article which explains Oracle laid everyone off: Phipps, Simon (20 May 2011). "OpenOffice.org and contributor agreements". LWN.net. Retrieved 16 June 2013. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't say the project was closed. In fact, it says the opposite, that a project shell was left open. Neither does it say development was discontinued. Though it does say that there was "no development work in progress" at that time of writing.

Is there a source for the above statements? --Tóraí (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The project shell was the source code, but I can see from your mocking above you have no idea what source code is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What I know, or what you know, is immaterial. Reliable sources are what count. Is there a source that says that the project was "closed" or that development on it was "discontinued"? --Tóraí (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, actually what you don't know is killing us all here. We're offering you RSes that offer clear proof to anyone with knowledge of development nomenclature and yet when you read them you don't understand. So I'm sorry, it's the crux of the problem here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter, there's no technical "nomenclature" in the source you provided. The relevant passage reads: "As far as I can tell all that's left of OO.o is the project shell, with no development work in progress because Oracle has now stood down all the staff it had working on the project..."

All that means is that no development work was in progress at that time. A lull or pause in productive development, particularly ahead of the transfer of a project to another corporation, is not the same as development being discontinued or the project being closed down.

Two weeks later (2 June), Oracle transferred ownership to Apache, which involved lots of work (even if not productive development for a long time after). I don't know how much experience you have of software development, but it does involve bureaucracy. The transfer of a project like OpenOffice involves a whole heap of non-productive work. Just look at the list of work items done after Apache received ownership on 2 June. So, even if there was "no development work in progress" on 20 May, you can be sure that project management, stakeholders, lawyers, business types, and infrastructure people were very busy preparing the handover.

So, no, someone saying on May 20 that, "As far as I can tell ... no development work [is] in progress..." is not the same as saying the project closed or development was discontinued. Unbeknowns to the author at that time, ownership of the project was to be transferred to Apache two weeks later. Putting a hold on productive development ahead of that transfer is only normal so that the lawyers, project managers, intrastructure people and business types aren't working against a moving target. (Not to mention that bean counters would be looking at developers working on the project and think, 'Two weeks from now, we're not going to own this project. Why waste money paying you to work on something we don't care about anymore when you could be doing something else or we could let you go.' That's just resource management in a commercial operation.)

Sources need to be explicit. So, can you please provide a source that supports the statements made in the article? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "project has been closed" is the technical nomenclature and you don't understand it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Is there a source that supports the claim made in the article that the project was closed?

For example, here's a source from the same time to say Oracle's intention was to transfer the project to Apache: "Oracle announced a proposal this week to transfer the OpenOffice.org (OOo) project to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)."

Here's another also from the time: "Oracle is shunting OpenOffice onto the Apache Software Foundation, sidelining the original OpenOffice community that forked off the project as LibreOffice last year."

And here's a source to say they did transfer the project to Apache: "Oracle transferred control of OpenOffice to the Apache Software Foundation, while LibreOffice is maintained by the newly created Document Foundation."

So, is there a source that says the project closed? From what I can see, and what sources say, is that ownership of it was just transferred to another corporation. --Tóraí (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I would suggest that the source that states "project has been closed" is a source that supports it.

In this sense, "project", means two separate things. As an FOSS project, it can never close. The source code that has had an open source license applied to can never be removed from the public. It can, however change over time. No one owns that source code. However, certain companies or organizations can take ownership of a project and guide it. Again, this relates to Linux. No one controls the Linux kernel and many of the utilities associated with it, but any changes to those open source elements are returned to the project. That is why when you dismissed the argument above based on Linux I suspected that you knew nothing about open source. So at the cor of OpenOffice is a set of code. All of the development efforts related to that core project may return to the core. All of the efforts that are being led by Apache on the core can be returned to the core. All of the efforts made on the core by governments and educational facilities around the world can return to the core. They may keep their modifications for themselves and work on branches of the code. All that means is that if a change is made to something they've worked on, they have to make their code work with the public changes rather than the other way around. So no one actually owns the FOSS code, but companies are free to brand their own versions of it. While development on the project called OpenOffice may have shifted to a new company, nothing else has changed.

So feel free to add your sources to the article to support that work has stopped on this commercialized project and has been handed to Oracle, but the two articles do not merge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oracle closed StarDivision and fired the remaining staff. They left the machines up with the code on it, but literally no-one was working on it. That's pretty "closed". And there's multiple sources to this effect linked in the article.

Oracle then spent two months discussing the matter with IBM, The Document Foundation and Apache. They then gave Apache the option on the trademark, and Apache took on the project. A couple of months after that, Oracle actually gave Apache the code (an import of the codebase and its history into Apache's Subversion server). Again, lots of sources here. (Some press, some first parties involved in the discussions; so may not be Wikipedia RSes, and would need linking with caution, but if you really wanted to claim something entirely different happened you'd need at the least a contemporary countervailing account).

More broadly: what you appear to have done is construct a narrative in your mind that supports your contention, then defy us to prove things didn't happen according to your narrative. And never mind the sources that are already in the article - have you read all of them? I have. If you're going to come up with novel narratives, you need to actually not contradict the multiple sourcings in the article. (And to understand the terms of art used in the sources, as your interpretations suggest you don't.) As I've said once already, there's good reason every phrase in the article has multiple third-party sources. If you want to come up with a novel narrative, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to have read them all and understand all of the POVs in play - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

David, all I am asking for is a source that supports statements made in the article. As you know, sources need to be explicit (exactly to prevent people adding material based on narratives they've constructed in their mind). And the burden lies with those who want the challenged statements to remain.

The two statements I've pulled out above aren't supported by the reference provided. Without telling a story (just in case you construct a narrative in your mind), is there a source that supports them? After months of discussion, this should be no great task for you if the statements are verifiable. --Tóraí (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about open source. After reading the above, it's a black hole I would never go down voluntarily.

I would suggest that the source that states "project has been closed" is a source that supports it.

Bang on. That's exactly what we need.

Take Fuduntu, for example. If an article was to state that that project has closed, it could site this source: "The team in charge of maintaining and developing Fuduntu, a Linux-based operating system designed as a hybrid of Fedora and Ubuntu, voted Sunday to close down the project." Or even this one: "Exactly a week after releasing a fresh update to its increasingly popular Linux distribution, the Fuduntu project on Monday announced that it's closing its doors for good."

So, in the case of OpenOffice.org, is there a reliable source to support the statement that the OpenOffice.org project has closed? There are reliable sources to support statements that the project was transferred to the Apache Foundation (example). And that OpenOffice.org was renamed Apache OpenOffice (example).

As you know, all statements that appear in articles must be verifable. So is the statement that the OpenOffice.org project has closed verifiable? --Tóraí (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Any joy on finding a source saying the project was closed? --Tóraí (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"In April 2011, Oracle ... fired the remaining StarDivision development team."

This statements appears in the article and is supported by the following references:

1. "[20 May 2011]: As far as I can tell all that's left of OO.o is the project shell, with no development work in progress because Oracle has now stood down all the staff it had working on the project..." (src)

However, "stood down" is not the same as "fired".

2. "After Oracle (which, in turn, bought Sun in 2010) called a halt to development on the project and handed off the code base to the Apache Foundation in 2011, the Star Division team got laid off with everyone else." (src)

"After Oracle (which, in turn, bought Sun in 2010) called ... handed off the code base to the Apache Foundation" is after April 2011 (at least post June 2011).

I'm going to remove the first reference and amend the statement to accord with the second reference. --Tóraí (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Oracle shut the project, firing the developers, then, after deliberations involving IBM and the Document Foundation, handed it to Apache. I am reverting your changes as they have the sequence of events completely backwards, in support of a narrative that is utterly original synthesis from cherrypicked and misconstrued sources. You also clumsily deleted a reference in the process - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What does the source say? Please quote the section of either reference that supports the statement: "In April 2011, Oracle ... and fired the remaining StarDivision development team".

And I didn't "clumsily deleted a reference". I removed an statement that wasn't supported by the given reference. I'll open another tread on the statement I deleted. --Tóraí (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that Oracle donated the code to Apache then fired the StarDivision staff, even though Apache didn't even accept the project until two months later. (That's a ref on Apache OpenOffice.)

This is not using the sources - this is coming up with a completely bizarre timeline that contradicts sources already present in the articles you think should be merged, then defying others to find sources disproving your bizarre timeline. This strongly suggests you really, really haven't read the sources, and that you don't really understand the sources you did read - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that Oracle donated the code to Apache then fired the StarDivision staff...

I'm not claiming that. It's what the Gold source says: "After Oracle ... handed off the code base to the Apache Foundation in 2011, the Star Division team got laid off with everyone else." (My emphasis.)

--Tóraí (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"...some speculate that it was due to the loss of mindshare with much of the community moving to LibreOffice..."

I cannot find anything to support this statement in the given reference.

Is the statement verifiable? --Tóraí (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"...others suggest it was a commercial decision..."

This relates to the firing of the Sun Division team. The reference is the one that says the staff were "stood down" (not the same as fired) and is from May 20 (before Jon Gold ref says the firing took place).

I'm don't dispute the truth of the matter, and the source bring up interesting reasoning behind Oracle decision around OpenOffice.org, but I don't think it's a suitable source for exactly what it says.

Possibly the statement could be re-written to accord more closely to the source. --Tóraí (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming a difference between "stood down" and "fired"? What? - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "stood down" has two potential meanings here (OED):

1. withdraw or resign from a position or office
2. relax or cause to relax after a state of readiness

The first of these could mean 'fired', in this case, but could just 'assigned a different role'. The second of these would mean to be the put onto other, less immediate duties. It's unclear what the author means.

The substance about what the author is writing about CLAs is pertinent, though. --Tóraí (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two linked sources in the article already say their employment ceased, whatever word you want to use for it - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

David, the claim being here is not that the staff were fired (that verifiable through the Laguna interview) but that "others suggest it was a commercial decision". What's the source for that? --Tóraí (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"In June 2011, Oracle contributed the trademarks to the Apache Software Foundation."

The reference for this statement doesn't mention anything about trademarks.

What it does talk about is that "[Oracle] Donating OpenOffice.org to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future." etc.

The trademark question, I know, is verifiable. I just wonder how an obvious reference such as this came to refer to something as narrow as trademarks. And is typical, I think, of poor adherance to WP:V on the issue of Apache and OpenOfice in the article.

How did this come about? --Tóraí (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The trademark was literally all they had. They later contributed the code itself, in August, and various databases, the OOo wiki, etc later on (though third-party sources may not have bothered covering this, the first-party mundane technical sources of the project noted it as it happened) - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Trademarks aren't mentioned in this source. As I said, I know it's verifiable though other means, I just wonder how a source that says nothing about trademarks came to be associated with a statement only about trademarks.

Is there a source for what you just described? --Tóraí (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"In April 2011, Oracle stopped development of OpenOffice.org..."

This statement is not supported by the given reference.

The reference says, "Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office."

This doesn't say Oracle stopped development. It says it plans (at an unstated time in future) to move development to a purely community-based model. It doesn't say that it stopped development (even in-house Oracle development) in April 2011.

Now, before David starts flaming. I'm dealing here with verifiability, not truth. The "truth" is of no interest to us. --Tóraí (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two sources already in the article for the fact that Oracle's employment of the StarDivision staff ceased.

The phrasing "verifiability, not truth" was removed because it was used by people in this manner, i.e. to try to support absurd claims. It is possible to come up with a strange sequence of events bearing no resemblance to what happened - e.g. the edit in which you claimed that Oracle donated the code to Apache then fired the StarDivision staff, even though Apache didn't even accept the project until two months later - but it isn't a goal and it isn't something to try to get away with. If accuracy is not of interest to you, then an online encyclopedia may not be a good place for you to be writing, particularly on topics you don't understand. Wikipedia's epistemology is a fragile compromise, rather than a reliable truth-divining mechanism - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then let's stick with the new wording on WP:V says: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

There are two sources already in the article for the fact that Oracle's employment of the StarDivision staff ceased. The statement doesn't say anything about StarDivion staff being fired. It says, "April 2011, Oracle stopped development of OpenOffice.org". Is there a source for that statement?

Consider, for a moment, that Oracle could have fired all of StarDivision and move development somewhere else. (I don't care if that sounds impractical, I'm merely illustrating the difference between a division being fired and development stopping.) What we want for this statement is a reference to say Oracle stopped development on OpenOffice.org in April 2011. Who they fired is irreverent to that statement.

If the statement itself cannot be verified then it needs to be amended or phrased some other way (that is verifiable) at the very least. --Tóraí (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"It also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License..."

Before even asking if the reference for this supports the claim, is this reference is an email? And appears to be speculating on the matter. As we all know, there can be no self-published sources (except in very exceptional circumstances).

The associated statement is made as a bald statement of fact. What is the justification for using this email? And how does it support the statement? --Tóraí (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a statement from the project itself, so is authoritative in a technical (legal) context, i.e. this is what is legally happening. Certainly it's not as good as a high-quality third-party source on a technical matter, but you'd need something pretty good to ignore it. The question of whether Oracle actually just AL2'd the lot or what precisely happened was one of considerable concern at the time.

Note that primary sources are to be used with caution, rather than regarded as verboten. A clear statement from the project about just what the legal situation is with relicensing the code may well be a usable source as to just what the legal situation is with relicensing the code - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used with caution. But there are a number of the things I find worrying about this source:

1. It's not a "clear statement from the project". It's a discussion between two members of the project.
2. Hamilton's comments begins with: "Rob makes some important points. Here's my analysis based on that..." Robs comments include, "My impression I think the ALv2 is attached during the IP review..." Those are speculative statements. The author aren't certain at the time of writing. Yet, the reference is presented as a matter of fact.
3. I don't see where the source says that "[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License..." If anything it says the opposite: "Oracle did not put anything under the ALv2 with its Software Grant Agreement."

--Tóraí (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"...at the suggestion of IBM (to whom Oracle had contractual obligations concerning the code)"

It's not clear what the associated sources for this statement are in reference to: the whole statement or just the part in parenthesis?

• H-Online
• ZDNet

If it's just the part in parenthesis, it a synthesis to combine that with "at the suggestion of IBM".

If it's the whole thing then I cannot find reference to this in the sources provided. It's possible I'm missing it in the H-Online source. I don't think I could miss it in the ZDNet source. --Tóraí (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what your question is. The ZDnet article notes "Oracle, which I'm told has contractual obligations to IBM to see that OpenOffice continued to be developed, was fine with this." This entire page of the H-Online article is about Oracle's obligations to IBM concerning the OOo codebase - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article says that Oracle contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License at the suggestion of IBM. It hints that this was because of contractual obligations.

If the references are intended to support the whole statement:

• The question is: What does the ZDNet or H-Online article say about why (or who's suggestion) Oracle decided to contribute Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing? Does it say it was at IBM's suggestion?

If the references are only intended to support the statement in parenthesis then it's a synthesis to combine that with "at the suggestion of IBM" because it would imply more than the references support on their own. --Tóraí (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License ... as IBM did not want the code put under a copyleft license."

The associated reference for this statement is here.

It a blog entry from IBM explaining why they chose to donate Symphony to Apache instead of LibreOffice. It doesn't say anything that I can see about Oracle's decision to contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License because of IBM not wanting the code put under a copyleft license.

Have I missed something? Or is the statement verifiable though another source? --Tóraí (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The blog entry notes IBM's preference for non-copylefted software, particularly in the context of the OOo codebase - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But the article says, "[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License ... as IBM did not want the code put under a copyleft license."

Does the blog entry say anything about Oracle's reason to contribute Oracle-owned code to Apache? --Tóraí (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Apache project removed or replaced as much code from OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta 1, including fonts, under licenses unacceptable to Apache..."

The source for this statement doesn't appear to support the it. Is the statement verifiable? --Tóraí (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That does need a better source - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Any more input?

If there is no more input to the above, I'm going to assume the statements are unverifiable as they stand and either a) amend them to more closely match sources, b) remove them or c) mark them as lacking sources. --Tóraí (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You've already demonstrated (as multiply cited above) that don't understand the topic, you don't understand the references and you don't understand the replies to your queries. Thus, such unilateral action would be wilfully ignoring input - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this still going on? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently so - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"[Apache] released 3.4.0 in May 2012."

The reference for this statement doesn't say when the release took place. I presume this is easily verifiable though another source. --Tóraí (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Move request

FYI, I've opened a move request at OpenOffice to move it back to OpenOffice (disambiguation) and redirect OpenOffice to Apache OpenOffice. --Tóraí (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

At the time I post this comment, it's 100% against. It is possible your goal regarding these articles is misconceived - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't have any "goal" regarding any of "these articles" beyond improving them. If you don't mind me saying, David, the comment above shows signs of a battle field mentality and a lack of good faith. --Tóraí (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider it Stockholm syndrome rather than battle field mentality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it isn't healthy. Maybe people need to come out of the trenches a little more. --Tóraí (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I can sympathise with your feeling bruised here @Tóraí: but believe that the trenches you refer to are actually merely defences against the resolute march of commercialisation and its appropriation of charitable acts. If sometimes these defences are hectically maintained I think it a result of relentless attack rather than something intrinsic to the defenders. I am not in favour of ad hominem debate so have no idea of your personal connections to any of this. I am simply an educated user of IT, frustrated by the way that great, and usually fabulously simple software is continually gobbled up by private leviathans, then either simply to be excreted or to be regurgitated in technicolor fanfare for consumption by its giddy public. This seems to me to be a "simple" conflict between genuine non-profit organisations and ... well Mammon. LookingGlass (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had to take a break from Wikipedia for a while, but will return to looking at the RS issue in a short while.

I get what you're saying, LookingGlass, but I don't believe we're here to right great wrongs or advocate a point of view. That's why I'm taking an RS-based approach rather than arguing the toss one-way-or-another.

FWIT, I have no personal or professional connections to Oracle, IBM, Sun, OpenOffice or LibreOffice. I am listed as a contributor to Apache - but for an entirely different project. --Tóraí (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Great article but ...

Despite inline references numbered in the hundreds, the section on Active developments is difficult to understand, at least for someone who doesn't already know what it is saying.

The main article on LibreOfice describes it as being a "fork" whereas the main article on Apache OO describes it as being a "descendant". This seems a POV interpretation. It is stated in the section on Apache OO that Oracle "donated" the code to Apache, but as this was freely available anyway in what way can it be said to have been donated? If it was infact freely available then Oracle also "donated" the code to LibreOffice. The striking difference between the two would seem to be then that Oracle favours LibreOffice, as that is what it supplies in its version of Linux, rather than that it "donated" the code to Apache. So, either both are "descendants" or LibreOffice is and Apache OO is not, but I can't see it as being the opposite way around. I think the first sentence of the Apache OO section should be edited to delete the peacocking.

LookingGlass (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Oracle did donate something related to the code: the power to release Oracle-controlled code (either written by Sun/Star/Oracle or assigned to them under a CLA) under the Apache License, rather than LGPL; and they specifically gave Apache the power to go through the code drop, releasing code as ALv2 where it could be released as ALv2. (Since Oracle didn't actually own everything in the code drop, Apache had to go through and check. This took quite a while.)

I note also that Oracle Linux only adopted LibreOffice in mid-2012, well after the Apache donation, so your other change may imply these actually happened anywhere near each other. (I was initially confused by this too, but check the dates all this happened.) Of course, it's not because Oracle made a deliberate choice, but because that was just what RHEL (Oracle Linux's upstream) did - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. IMO and despite your edit the article still doesn't make this clear, sounding as if Apache is the "true descendant" and LibreOffice a usurper of some kind. Of course this is only if you haven't read what you wrote above etc, but t5he article should stand alone and be clear. Can you edit accordingly? I appreciate the addition of tthe words "and trademarks" but this, though probably correct, doesn't seem to focus on making the reality clear. It didn't to me and still wouldn't if I came across it fresh. LookingGlass (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. No-one objects to LO being called a "fork", but some call AOO a "fork" and others (particularly the project, but not solely the project) hotly dispute this. I thought noting it in the AOO section with citations was sufficient without appearing to push a view ... I don't have an alternate wording off the top of my head, feel free to propose some. Basically we need more people bothering with the issue though - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@David Gerard and David: Thanks, I get you, but having read the text again I realise I don't know enough to do any helpful. I've also lost the will to live on this, having downloaded LO only to find no F1 help file, just an online forum! Arrggghh!!! I really WANT to use LO. And it does seem faster, and there are one or two things sorted out but still (and leaving the idiot board graphics aside) .. how is it that techs find designing a simple UI so hard?!? LookingGlass (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's in the hope of the help ever being updated ... I sort of potter about ;-) The books from ODF Authors are a good start IME, to get to know the programs and write about them sensibly - most functionality is still the same between OOo/AOO/LO, after all - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, LibreOffice bundles its offline help files separately: you can install the help file from the "Help for offline use" link on this page, for example. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Openoffice not discontinued

I just installed openoffice and it worked, so how is it discontinued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hug0905 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the Apache version of OpenOffice not the original project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to start the page by saying that Open Office is a discontinued office suite. I almost decided to give up on using Open Office because it had been discontinued. I think there needs to be mention of the successors to Open Office right at the start of the article. If I go to the web site OpenOffice.org, there is no indication that they think they have been discontinued. Steven Greenberg (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Steve Greenberg

One active successor is literally mentioned before the start of the article ... and three successors are named at the end of the first para. What wording would you suggest? (I've taken out the word "discontinued" for now, and made the infobox status "Discontinued, with successors".) - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just installed openoffice and it worked, so how is it discontinued?

I think it is misleading to start the page by saying that Open Office is a discontinued ... I almost decided to give up on using Open Office because it had been discontinued.

It is not discontinued. And it is entirely misleading to start the article like that. The notion that it has been discontinued is a POV pushed religiously by David Gerard and Walter Görlitz and is plainly contradicted by fact. But, just as David himself might say, "some editors of [this] site conduct 'battles to the death for insanely low stakes'." --Tóraí (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've recently studied all the facts I could find on this (on WP and further afield) and it's clear at least to my small intellect that the original OpenOffice.org project was killed off by Oracle and reincarnated at The Document Foundation and then at Apache. It's also clear that there are people in the Apache Open Office project who hate this obvious fact being mentioned. The formulation "OO.o discontinued with AOO and LO as successors" seems to me to do an admirable job as an NPOV summary of this divisive issue and I really can't understand why you dislike it so much. Maybe my inexperience is making me miss something - can you educate me? Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that OpenOffice.org is discontinued is a fact not a PoV. That Apache has taken over the project and renamed it is a fact not a PoV. As ClareTheSharer stated, OpenOffice.org has been discontinued with and Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice are its successors. So add anoth editor who is pushing an opinion other than yours. Feel free to continue pushing your battle to the death for insanely low stakes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That Apache has taken over the project and renamed it is a fact not a PoV. Exactly. Apache took over the project. And they renamed it. We don't create a new article every time a piece of software gets renamed. If we did, we'd have separate article every time a project gets transferred to Apache. Or when Oracle briefly renamed it Oracle Open Office after taking over from Sun.

Liking the transfer to Apache with the schism between OpenOffice and the Documentation Foundation misses the point of what constitutes (transferring) a software project. The transfer to Apache involved the transfer of the legal ownership of trademarks, domain names, copyright, etc. from one owner (Oracle) to another (Apache). There was lengthy and involving work from the previous owner (Oracle) and the new owner (Apache) in that transfer. It was a legal transfer of ownership, not merely the forking of code or the picking up of an abandoned project.

As for other editors, I'm with the two initial posters to this tread (and others before them). And far from alone in thinking the POV here is out of step with the facts. --Tóraí (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We do create new articles when software and other items are renamed. See the Windows articles, OS X articles, various iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad and other articles. Datsun and Nissan. I could go on. Also, if an article would be too long, it's split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For significant versions of software, yes, we have separate articles (see the guidelines on when to spin out a new article). So, we have an article on Windows 8.1. But we don't say that Microsoft Windows is discontinued because of it.

On the question of whether we create a new article when software (or any other subject) gets renamed: no, we do not. We may rename the article according to our policies. But we do not create a new article just because something gets renamed. That would be content forking, which is a generally a bad thing.

Now, is there actual disagreement that the project was transferred from Oracle to Apache? And that Apache rebranded it? What is the source to say it has been discontinued? --Tóraí (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that OpenOffice (and its forks) are not significant? SPINOUT is related to size it does not address new company ownership, which is the case here. If there was enough for a common OpenOffice, we should create it. There isn't.

There are sources that the project was transferred to Apache, but not that they rebranded it: that's simply obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course Libre Office and others deserve articles of their own. This tread is about the claim that OpenOffice.org has been disconnecteddiscontinued (Edit: --Tóraí (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)). You appear to support that claim. I and others say it was renamed to Apache OpenOffice.

Here's a source that says that OpenOffice.org was renamed to Apache OpenOffice: "In June 2011 OpenOffice.org has been renamed to Apache OpenOffice..." Is there a source to support the claim that OpenOffice.org is disconnecteddiscontinued (--Tóraí (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC))? --Tóraí (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no source that says they're "disconnected" because that's a lie and a word you introduced as essentially a fallacy of equivocation. OpenOffice.org, Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice are all connected: by their common source code. They are different projects and that has been well documented. Sorry. I didn't fall for the trickery. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Disconnected" was a auto-correct typo. What I meant to write was "discontinued".

The article currently describes OpenOffice.org as, "Discontinued ... 25 January 2011; 3 years ago". Is there a source for that? --Tóraí (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and one or two others are acting against the majority view, they just have way too much time at their hands and revert any attempt to change the wording to the correct one. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 to that. --Tóraí (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You should take more responsibility for your spelling and not blame auto-correct.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apache-openoffice-3-4-makes-official-debut-libreoffice-makes-its-case/10915 quotes a statement of fact: We find this announcement particularly interesting as, a year after Oracle shuttered OpenOffice.org, the Incubator (also cited as Apache) now have their release out. And there's http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

However, there are those who see that the Apache projet, which took over, is simply a continuation of the former, but they're as reliable as your auto-correct: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201301.mbox/%3C450D0047-828A-4C14-9A4D-7C08D56EE004@comcast.net%3E Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Walter.

Both of the sources you link to mention a software product being discontinued. However, the product they described as being discontinued is Oracle Open Office, which is a different product again. Easily confused with OpenOffice.org, it was the now discontinued the commercial version. Read the sources again:

"In 2011, Sun Microsystems was acquired by Oracle. They renamed the proprietary StarOffice office suite to 'Oracle Open Office,' as if they wanted to cause confusion, and then discontinued it." - http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

"Sun acquired the former StarOffice suite (developed by StarDivision in Germany) in 1999. Oracle renamed it Oracle OpenOffice after acquiring Sun but discontinued its development in mid 2010." - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apache-openoffice-3-4-makes-official-debut-libreoffice-makes-its-case/10915

Additionally, both sources you cite would seem to suggest that OpenOffice.org is not discontinued. See here:

"As expected, the first version of OpenOffice under new management -- the Apache Software Foundation -- has been released." - http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

"The original OpenOffice.org seemed down and out. In 2011, Oracle gave the OpenOffice.org trademarks and code to the Apache Software Foundation. The project known as OpenOffice today is actually Apache OpenOffice and is being developed under Apache’s umbrella under the Apache license. ... the Apache OpenOffice project isn’t dead. Apache released the beta version of OpenOffice 4.1 in March, 2014." - http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

This article (also from ZDNet) might cause you to smile: "Perhaps OpenOffice should adopt a new slogan from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 'I'm not dead yet!'"

So, is there a source that supports the claim that OpenOffice.org has been discontinued (as opposed to simply renamed)? --Tóraí (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article, 19 April 2011, states that Oracle drops OpenOffice.org supported by another blog the day before, Open Source Rebels Defeat Oracle, Free OpenOffice. However another source on 15 April stated Oracle Fully Open Sources OpenOffice.org. Then 1 June 2011, Statements on OpenOffice.org Contribution to Apache. So they put the code into open source, but had already dropped support of it. Apache likely stepped in as the sponsor, but Oracle wanted to take some glory. The project was dead and handed over. Your timeline is wrong, but it was probably the autocorrect. I'm done with this discussion.

12 October 2012 Facing Closure, OpenOffice.org Makes a Plea for Survival. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Those April 18/19 April sources seem to jump the gun. One says, "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th." The other says, "Oracle kills its support of OOo project, OOo will continue on as a vendor-neutral branch -- LibreOffice."

Both are based on the April 15 press release where Oracle says, "Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office. ... we believe the OpenOffice.org project would be best managed by an organization focused on serving that broad constituency on a non-commercial basis."

In the end, was that organisation the Document Foundation? In the end, did discontinuing the commercial version of OpenOffice mean the open-source version was discontinued too?

As you indicate, the June 1 press release revealed otherwise. In that, Oracle say, "Donating OpenOffice.org to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future."

So, is there a source that says this software was disctinued (and not just renamed)? --Tóraí (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wrangling"

Could somebody explain what this revert alludes to by "precisely what they donated was a matter of considerable confusion and wrangling"? There is a reference near by from the incubator list which explains what happens in podlings concerning software grants: pretty much par for the course in any incubation process for pre-existing projects. Was there something qualitatively different in the open office incubation regarding the software grant? I tried to skip over the incubation process since they are prone to protracted discussions -- some of which aren't public -- and simply note that the polling graduated. shellac (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Lotta people think Oracle gifted Apache the code in one go and bang, OOo was AL2. They didn't, all they gave Apache was the right to go through it and AL2 stuff they wanted that was covered by the Sun/Oracle CLA - and the stuff was not in fact cleared under AL2 until that had been done. This was controversial in that e.g. a lot of stuff in child workspaces (material that had been submitted to Oracle but didn't go into a release) is not in fact available unless and until someone from Apache bothers going through it. It's one sentence, I think it's a relevant wrinkle to note in the history of the software - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(A related issue came up with the IBM Symphony sidebar donation - only those lines which someone from AOO had certified as AL2 were AL2, the rest was in legal limbo as far as outside users were concerned. This made the press at the time. So I think this wrinkle is real-world-relevant.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Only the first clause of the sentence you restored ("It [Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License...") relates what you write above, David. As discussed above, the second and third clauses to the sentence ("...at the suggestion of IBM..." and "...as IBM did not want...") are unsupported by the references as being related to the main clause.

I presume this started off by accident but if the sentence is to remain it needs to be broken up so as not to mislead or to appear like original research.

Additionally, the source for the main clause is an email. Not only that, in the email, the author is engaging in his own analysis ("Here's my analysis..."). As discussed above also, that's not a good reference. --Tóraí (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)