openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Raphael Bircher" <>
Subject Re: Bugzilla
Date Sat, 20 May 2017 18:29:16 GMT
Am .05.2017, 19:15 Uhr, schrieb Hagar Delest <>:

> Le 20/05/2017 à 18:07, Raphael Bircher a écrit :
>> But companies don't com just to put money in, they want something back  
>> (normally). SUN and IBM was a big exception. The point is, we are not  
>> attractive for Companies at the moment. There is no room to make money.  
>> We should start getting attractive for companies.
> The only one I would see is Canonical. But i still don't understand why  
> they chose LibO.
> What other company would invest money in a MS Office competitor???
> In addition to the investment in the development (meaning manpower cost  
> but also the time needed to get the equivalent features they already  
> have in MS Office), there would also be the training of the users, the  
> migration of the existing tools and files (especially macros) and the  
> problem of the format interoperability with the people this company  
> deals with.
> That's too much for companies to think about it IMHO. Or perhaps Google  
> but what for?

The main problem is, that we have no good reason to invest in OpenOffice.  
Since years, we just run behind MS Office. But we never get beyond a good  
copy of MS Office. License cost free is not a feature. The only benefit  
OpenOffice offers, is that it runs on 3 Operating system with the same  
code. this gives a base line in the program witch MS O lakes. We avoid a  
load of compatibility issue with this.

> Is there any company that invests substantially in LibO BTW (just a  
> question, I really don't know)?
> When I see all the migrations (mostly to LibO because it's much more  
> dynamic and they are good at marketing their project), I just see bodies  
> (often administrations) who want to cut costs but without major  
> investment, they just take it because it serves their cause but I doubt  
> there is any will to go further for them (I mean dedicate manpower to  
> help the project).

That was a big mistake of the old OpenOffice Marketing. They promote  
mostly the cost freeness. And they promote that you can save the License  
expense. On the first look, this is true, but on the second view id didn't  
work at all. With Open Source you save no license cost, because you need  
the money to bring the project forward.

For my point of view, saving money is a bad reason to use Open Source.

> I thought when OOo was given to Apache that the licensing would give  
> interest to the project for companies but it did not happen at all. Less  
> restrictive licensing attracts most of the devs. This is part of the  
> world evolution today I guess: people want more free sharing, or at  
> least want to avoid that their code can be used for commercial when they  
> give it for free.

The license only don't generate commercial interest. It needs an  
interesting Project for company, and it looks, we are not at the moment.  
At the moment, the OpenOffice Project don't give companies the opportunity  
to make money.

This will probably change as sonn as
- there exist easy ways to do a 3rd party version
- there is a substantial interest of Users investing money.

My introduction

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message