openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Keith N. McKenna" <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] What Would OpenOffice Retirement Involve? (long)
Date Wed, 07 Sep 2016 00:34:31 GMT
Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>> Not sure how this will come across... I am certain I will not
>> be fully understood about this, anyway, this question deserves an
>> answer.
>> What has been obvious, from following the numerous threads in various
>> places, as well as contributing to the 2 main ones, is just how much
>> "damage" Rob Weir has either done or has been attributed to have done.
>> I guess the best way to state it is that he was a very "polarizing"
>> person...
>> Now a lot of the ill-will (and even worse, the hate) directed towards
>> AOO is not due to anything we personally did, but is simply redirected
>> venom, mostly due to how LO felt abused and used by Oracle and that
>> somehow we were complicit in it (this fallacy, of course, was maintained
>> by people who had a not-so-hidden-agenda to create and reinforce the
>> division between AOO and LO). There was really very, very little rational
>> cause for TDF/LO hating Apache and AOO so much... or, at least, developers
>> on that side being so antagonist towards Apache (I am ignoring, for the
>> present, those extreme copyleft proponents who have issue w/ permissive
>> licensing for anything). What I'm basically saying is that we did
>> nothing really to deserve the hate...
>> ... except for maybe some of the "over zealous" statements by Rob.
> One part is the statements. The other part, the most important one, is
> the actions.
> Since the old " / OOo" is not there anymore, the
> website should reflect objectively that there exist:
> 1. Apache OpenOffice, pointing to
> 2. LibreOffice, pointing to
[knmc] actually does exist there. The trademark and copyright
rights to were transferred to the ASF along with the
source code. Objective reality is that Apache OpenOffice is an active
> I hope that Rob was only involved with the current design of the
> landing page at
> There are a lot of strong feelings on this issue.
Rob was an active contributor to all facets of AOO. There are a lot of
strong feelings on both sides of the issue.
> Simos
>> What is kinda clear is that there is still a lot of sting there.
>> Now I did somewhat try to "explain" how such over-zealousness shouldn't
>> be so surprising, considering what he was fighting against (this explanation
>> was in the LWN thread), but rationalization isn't excuse.
>> No, I am not saying we focus on the past... but while we are
>> here for the present and future, we shouldn't "ignore" the past
>> but rather acknowledge it, and then bury it.
>> After all, aren't we asking TDF/LO to do the same??
>>> On Sep 6, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Marcus <> wrote:
>>> Am 09/06/2016 05:22 PM, schrieb Patricia Shanahan:
>>>> +1
>>>> I'm here for the present and the future, not the past.
>>> I also don't know what a single person - which has left the project long ago
- has to do with a "what-if-or-if-not" thinking game.
>>> Marcus
>>>> On 9/6/2016 8:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-09-02 09:02 (-0400), Jorg Schmidt <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> never we forget how members of OpenOffice (for example, Rob Weir)
>>>>>> were insulted by TDF representatives.
>>>>> It's important, in all of this conversation, to keep the interests of
>>>>> the *users* first. This project is about producing software for the
>>>>> public good, not about winning some contest, or nursing our hurt
>>>>> feelings. We owe it to the users to forgive and forget actual and
>>>>> perceived insults, and move on with our lives. Otherwise, what the
>>>>> heck are we doing here?
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message