

Apache Openoffice 4.0 RC Released - synchronise
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Development+Snapshot+Builds

======
haven
OpenOffice isn't the OpenOffice you used to know (just a fork of LibreOffice
with Oracle's TMed name). If I recall, Oracle just handed it off to the Apache
Foundation after losing developer support and being dropped by prominent linux
distros. Oracle called LibreOffice a fork, but that is nonsense since it is
the original maintainers and code with only a new name. I'm actually curious
why Apache Foundation took on OpenOffice following Oracle's misteps and what
the rationale is for its existence alongside LibreOffice. (There is one,
right?) To be fair, I haven't used them side by side or followed OpenOffice
since the Oracle debacle.

TL;DR: Oracle forked OpenOffice and kept the name. Long live LibreOffice!

In other news, LibreOffice 4 has been released:
[https://www.libreoffice.org](https://www.libreoffice.org)

~~~
binarycrusader
The accepted definition of a software fork is a copy of an existing project
that is independently developed.

Therefore, LibreOffice is a fork:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_\(software_development\))

It doesn't matter which people do or do not work on the project at this point.
The original owners of OpenOffice donated the project to the Apache foundation
(under less restrictive licensing terms I might add).

So at this point, it doesn't matter what happened to the project in the past,
OpenOffice is now an Apache project owned by the Apache foundation.

TL;DR: The OpenOffice project (now part of the Apache Software Foundation)
announced the second release candidate for the soon to be released OpenOffice
4.0.

~~~
Shish2k
> The accepted definition of a software fork is a copy of > an existing
> project that is independently developed. > ... > It doesn't matter which
> people do or do not work on the > project at this point

Surely if the definition is "independently developed", then which people are
developing it is the _only_ thing that matters?

~~~
binarycrusader
The independently developed (in my mind) is not referring to the people
developing it, but rather the fact that the new copy is developed
independently of the old project.

As an example, you can have the same set of developers on a new project, but
as long as it's a copy of an old project, most people still expect that to be
called a fork since the development of that copy is independent of the
original.

------
Maxious
Release notes:
[https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0...](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes)

Claims better document fidelity
[http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Impro...](http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Fidelity_Improvement_Since_AOO341)

and a new UI to differentiate from LibreOffice
[http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Sidebar](http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Sidebar)

------
copx
Does anybody actually use this? Why?

~~~
rdtsc
Exactly. Why? Not only that, who contributes to it, why?

Hasn't the train left the station so to speak? Why not just say ok it is
called LibreOffice. Most devs moved there. Let's focus on that product. I
understand Oracle maybe continuing supporting it on their own dime because
they got butthurt, why did Apache Foundation bother?

This is in the same boat as Hudson vs Jenkins.

~~~
pestaa
I was aware of the Hudson-Jenkins duality, but didn't know Oracle is to blame
for that one, too.

Even if a company needs to defend its trademarks and such, why is there almost
a need to ruin everything else in the process?

------
samspenc
Why can't the LibreOffice and OpenOffice guys work together and give us an
Office solution that is a real answer to MS Office?

