Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 09:03, 31 January 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Apple Inc. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Software: Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection

	OpenOffice.org is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 9, 2013 Peer review Reviewed November 10, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

The contents of the RomanianOffice page were merged into OpenOffice.org on 12 February 2012‎. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see Error: Invalid time. its history.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2013-09-25 There are no active tasks for this page

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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)

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)

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)

Split the article - a roadmap

OK, after Apache finally released AOO 4.0 we should think of how we split the articles.

Some organizational stuff (proposal):

• Move OpenOffice (disambiguation) to OpenOffice
• Move OpenOffice back to OpenOffice.org (as it is the old obsolete name)
• Create a new page Apache OpenOffice

Some topical stuff (proposal):

• which kind of features and critics should be should be overtaken?
• how to include the forks? Actually there are no new forks since Apache overtook OpenOffice (except the short lived White Label Office)
• how to rewrite the history? which parts are needed? what should be excluded as it is simply too old?
• release history? I mean actually we can combine the release history in two sentence and mention only 3 or 4 major releases...
• any other ideas? (esp. including the thread above)

text What is your opinion? What did I miss to ask?

mabdul 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it, I think the present text would actually allow an AOO article to split out pretty cleanly - David Gerard (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

That sounds perfect. I'm going to give this a go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Just had a hack at it. Probably left dangling references. Some stuff I added is IMO well known but still needs solid citing (e.g. both AOO and LO claim to be the legitimate successor). I've historicised it down to about "==Fonts==" - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving OpenOffice (disambiguation) to OpenOffice seems a very good idea. The current redirect is too confusing Bhny (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I've done it the other way, i.e. OpenOffice is now pointed at the dab page. Cleaning up in AWB as we speak.

I'm a little annoyed that a two-year-old version of the article has been dropped in (future tenses and all), given our considerable effort to clean up the old text over the past year. I'll probably put back quite a bit of the text, carefully-researched references etc - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I just tried to clean up the 2yo text, and it's hopeless. It's badly-written, embarrasingly ungrammatical, very badly referenced, and actually wrong in way too many places (hence the hard-arsed referencing). This has been a contentious article, so careful wording and strong citations are really, really important here. I've reverted to the last text; if you want to restructure the article (e.g. re-merging the corporate history with the development history), please start with the well-referenced text - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't actually a wholesale revert to the old revision: I started with a recent revision and selectively imported old bits. But I'll see if I can have another go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. Please don't take it the wrong way but I have to strongly disagree that OpenOffice is a redirect to the disambiguation page. OpenOffice with no space and without the .org is the Apache project, period. I also disagree that David seems to blindly change all OpenOffice links into OpenOffice.org. At least in the case of linking to an article about a now defunct project is at very least weird. What is also totally weird – and as far as I'm aware unique to software articles – that a mere change in management results in a new article. One article per major version is common but splitting off the section about OO 3.4 into another article than all other 3.x versions hardly follows WP conventions. Over the years plenty of existing software projects joined Apache. Did any of them ever get a new WP article just because they became Apache projects? I never encountered that. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against splitting convoluted articles up but in case of software doing it along the lines of major releases seems to be WP standard. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

"OpenOffice with no space and without the .org is the Apache project, period." You appear there to be claiming that ASF has successfully confused a trademark owned by someone else. You're making an accusation of trademark violation against ASF that would require a high level of citation. (Rob Weir's blog post that seems to claim "OpenOffice" means "AOO", and his blog comments since then, probably isn't sufficient.)

Also, you are asserting AOO = OOo - but this is itself a matter of great contention, a lot of "he said, she said" and hence something neither side can just have accepted on an assertion. Hence noting in the intro that both AOO and LO claim to be the legitimate successor project (and yes, I need to find the cites for the claims ASAP, but they both do it a lot) - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Oracle donated all of OpenOffice.org, including web domain, trademarks, and most importantly source code copyright to Apache. Claiming that these facts are “a matter of great contention” is a non-neutral POV. These are facts – easily provable by simply visiting http://www.openoffice.org and scrolling to the bottom of the page with legal notices – not even TDF disagrees with (third party references: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=oracle+donates+openoffice+to+apache ).

You however avoided my main point: Why should OpenOffice diverge from Misplaced Pages common practice of separate articles per major version? —KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The short answer is "because this is an odd and individual case", as has been documented to a querulous degree. The article also splits much more cleanly as projects rather than as version numbers - the former is a sensible and informative split (AOO is an almost completely disjoint project from OOo), the latter is not - which is the important encyclopedic consideration - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It certainly isn't the case that "OpenOffice with no space and without the .org is the Apache project, period" in most Linux distributions, for instance: "apt-get install openoffice" will install LibreOffice on Debian and derivatives (and I believe the same happens on Red Hat-esque distros), for which the "community manager" of AOO (who, by complete coincidence, is an employee of the company that brokered the trademark assignment in the first place) has openly threatened legal action. That alone would make it something of a special case. That there are well-referenced arguments that the Apache project is an astroturfing campaign with approximately zero buy-in from the free software community which is essentially an attempt at a hostile takeover (by virtue of leveraging its granted trademark, at the behest of the company responsible for said trademark transfer, to attract the majority of the former user base built over years by a departed developer community) is also of significant note. Indeed the latter applies here to the same extent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If you mean Rob Weir's comments on the matter, he stated outright he wasn't making a legal threat as such (despite long precedent that the sort of sabre-rattling his words appear to be have consistently been found to constitute a legal threat), so I would first assume that he didn't intend his statements as legal threats per se, but as thinking out loud on the matter. The lwn.net thread in which he argues the point with Gervase Markham (who actually had to deal with closely analogous trademark issues on behalf of Mozilla over the use of the Firefox name) is useful and informative on the matter - and Rob's comments there read to me like a geek pontificating on how he thinks the law should work, not the comments of someone who's e.g. consulted ASF Legal.

Also, AOO doesn't have a "community manager" title (Apache's not big on titles); Rob does a lot of the leading, but isn't the "leader" per se. Compare how Michael Meeks does a lot of the leading at LO, but is in no way boss of the project - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Despite that the “most distributions” argument is nothing but claim out of thin air (at least my openSUSE installation does nothing like that), it doesn't even have anything to do with the topic at hand. OpenOffice.org simply became an Apache project and all copyrights, web domains, and trademarks were transferred to Apache. Whatever Debian maintainers do in their personal bias, does not change anything about this. It's exactly like Apache Subversion in this regard: Originally created by a company as independent FOSS project and later donated to Apache Foundation. You don't see two articles – one for CollabNet Subversion and one for Apache Subversion here.

If a software article is split, it's common practice at WP to make separate articles for major versions or in case of software suites possibly individual components but not management change. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

You are repeatedly asserting rather than saying anything new. Your suggested alternative makes no sense whatsoever here: in what world is a separate article for AOO 3.4 and AOO 4.0 a sensible idea? Note also that Calligra Suite and KOffice are separate articles, despite clear continuity (and the latter being in past tense as OpenOffice.org is). You also haven't substantiated nor withdrawn your claim of trademark violation on the part of ASF - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

“in what world is a separate article for AOO 3.4 and AOO 4.0 a sensible idea?”

Please read my comment again. I was referring to major versions, not minor versions. 3.4 would obviously be covered in the same article as all the other 3.x versions.

“Note also that Calligra Suite and KOffice are separate articles, despite clear continuity”

Calligra is a fork of KOffice, not a rename. Both projects existed simultaneously for a while.

“You also haven't substantiated nor withdrawn your claim of trademark violation on the part of ASF”

I never claimed any trademark violation by Apache. You have a vivid imagination… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've cited the opinions on AOO fork or not, though I still need an official link from the project for the first bit - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You cited Richard Hillesley in two different publications. Two references (The H Online and LinuxUser) by the same guy do not count as well-referenced of any kind of legal fact. Ownership of the software (all copyrights and trademarks) were transferred to Apache and that's an uncontested legal fact. Stop pushing your personal agenda here! --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: You slit the articles before consensus was reached. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't split them, and they've been split for a while now. What is the precise personal agenda you're accusing me of here? - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 1 October 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

Infobox update

Hi, OOo (AOO) 4.0 was released in july, it should be updated in the infobox. Thanks ! Fabrice Ferrer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Apache OpenOffice is a separate article. This is about the OpenOffice.org project. See above on this page - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've added it to the hatnote. The pages separated very cleanly ('cos they're different projects), but confusion is worth averting - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 28 September 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.

, 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 Misplaced Pages 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: - 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Apple Inc. articles
• Low-importance Apple Inc. articles
• WikiProject Apple Inc. articles
• B-Class software articles
• High-importance software articles
• B-Class software articles of High-importance
• B-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists