Talk:OpenOffice.org/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC on the topic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?

A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?

Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• OpenOffice was transferred by Oracle to Apache, including all copyrights and trademarks. That's a legal fact that has been discussed many times and the majority of discussion participants were always in favor of that as well. The only thing that has closed is the organization called “OpenOffice.org”. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Merge Just focusing on this article, Apache OpenOffice should be merged in. On April 14, 2011 I could go to www.openoffice.org and download OpenOffice.org. Oracle then announced plans to donate the project (code, copyrights, trademarks, domains names, IP, etc.) to a community organisation. That turned out to be the Apache Foundation and on June 1, 2011 the software was renamed to Apache OpenOffice.
  But that's the extent of it. I can still go to www.openoffice.org and download the latest version of the software. If I ask, What is Apache OpenOffice?, that site's FAQs tells me that it is "formerly OpenOffice.org".
  Same software, just renamed. So merge per norm. --Tóraí (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mabdul, Echinacin35, David Gerard, Semsi Paco Virchow, Rezonansowy, Jeffhoy, and Maxl:, @Thumperward, Bhny, Fabrice Ferrer, Palu, LookingGlass, Hug0905, and Steven Greenberg:, @ClareTheSharer: Notifying previous participants to discussion. Apologies if I missed anyone. --Tóraí (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• In any case, the original matter of this thread was the question of whether the software is discontinued (as stated in the article). No matter whether the two article are merged, that statement has been disputed and needs a source. --Tóraí (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: while Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org are indeed the same project from legal standpoint, merging these articles would violate WP:NPOV. As sources mention, many see LibreOffice as a true successor to OpenOffice.org (eg. Chacos, Brad. "Apache OpenOffice hits major 100 million downloads milestone in under two years". PCWorld. Retrieved 19 April 2014.). In my opinion, the most neutral description of the history of OpenOffice.org should stop at the point where it was donated to Apache Foundation and only discuss the split. As to other questions: yes, all these articles are of sufficient size, and articles about current projects will likely grow over time. Nothing should happen to DAB at OpenOffice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: The OpenOffice.org project had a clear, corporate-led character that came to an end once Oracle took control. The two responses to this event -- one resulting in LibreOffice and the other resulting in Apache OpenOffice -- have clearly different identities, policies, code-bases, strategies and licensing to the original project. Since both projects have participants who strongly claim continuity for their project, it seems impossible to avoid endorsing a point of view if a merge takes place. The best compromise seems to be the current set of disambiguation pages leading to both projects, a history article describing StarOffice and OpenOffice.org and articles describing the now-divergent successor projects. As I have also said elsewhere, the formulation "discontinued with active successors" (which is an editorial summary of a complex topic, rather than a directly cited phrase) seems to be the least offensive compromise; all the same, a better formulation is worth seeking if one exists that avoids endorsing one of the points of view. ClareTheSharer (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: There is no continunity between OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice with regard to license, team/contributors, stewards and governance. Apache OpenOffice has nothing more to do beyond the similar name with OpenOffice.org than e.g. NeoOffice or LibreOffice. If anything should be merged at all it would be StarOffice and OpenOffice.org as the now defunct historic predecessors of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.207.137 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: The StarOffice article suggests a precedent. Software does not cease to exist when development is discontinued or when a new version is released. Apache currently owns the name "OpenOffice", and that does mean that future releases will be in Apache OpenOffice, but the legal transfer of the name doesn't apply to old versions. That is, the OpenOffice.org article should continue to exist as a separate article, since StarOffice still exists despite having been superseded. Roches (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: Everything is different about the projects. All three articles are coherent and individual writeups of their history; the OOo and AOO articles in fact split really neatly, since everything is different about the two projects, and a merge would make a bad article that read like something in need of splitting (as it did before the split). Merge would endorse a highly-disputed POV (with the dispute strongly referenced in this very article), per ClareTheSharer. Roches' argument per StarOffice is also strong. Leave the disambig alone too, per Czarkoff. As I noted a few months ago, Santa Cruz Operation, Caldera (company) and SCO Group are separate articles despite 100% corporate continuity from second to third and claimed continuity by third from first. Because the separate articles are better and clearer - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Relevant to note also that Tóraí's previous proposal re: the redirect was already resoundingly rejected in January - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • And just to clarify: the word "merge" didn't appear anywhere in this thread before Walter Görlitz called this RfC. I support a merge (or rather I believe the article shouldn't have been split) but this RfC isn't a proposal of mine. --Tóraí (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merge It is my understanding that the legal entity OpenOffice.org (trademark and associated marks) was closed by Oracle and no longer exists in any active capacity. Apache OpenOffice was then formed by the absorption of IBM Lotus Symphony, so the Apache OO codebase is of multiple descent, i.e. a merger with the IBM Lotus Symphony article would compete on equal grounds, but we can't do both. In addition, LibreOffice is at least as eligible a successor to OO.o as Apache OpenOffice - again, we can't merge both in that direction either. So to avoid this becoming a complete mess, they all MUST remain separate. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Leaning toward oppose Some pretty good arguments are made above noting the conceptual and practical separation of the two subjects, so it seems reasonable we should have two articles. I'll note that it isn't necessarily always the case that largely distinct projects which are carried on by another organization are inappropriate to merge. In this instance it could be feasible to have one article on "OpenOffice" which covers LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and NeoOffice in sections. However there's no policy which requires us to do so. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Czarkoff: Thanks for a sensible responsible. The view that LibreOffice is the "true" successor is a legitimate view but we also have to balance WP:WEIGHT and other POVs. Even if Apache OpenOffice and this article aren't (re)merged, the current state of this article (e.g. describing OpenOffice.org as "discontinued") is fatally lacking in NPOV from the other direction.

If the two articles are kept apart, as now, then we have a NPOV paradox: If OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" then we violate NPOV by falling on the side that holds that Apache OpenOffice is not OpenOffice.org. If say it is not "discontinued" then what is its current release: Apache OpenOffice or LibreOffice?

Maybe a solution is to have a broad concept article here (or a OpenOffice) that takes a whole-world view of OpenOffice, including forks and lineages, in the same way that we might have an article on something like Linux. Then we can deal with Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice (and NeoOffice and all others) separately, just like we might with Debian, Fedora, etc., without saying either that OpenOffice.org is discontinued or that Apache OpenOffice is its one true successor. --Tóraí (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí: please stop harassing those who disagree with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's called discussion, Walter, and this is a talk page. We currently don't have a consensus. Through discussion we might arrive at a consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tóraí: I don't suggest to merge this article in LibreOffice or vice versa, I suggest to maintain neutrality – prefer neither of contenders, provided that one inhereted name and SVC, while another inherited community and most developers of OpenOffice.org. Merging Apache OpenOffice into this article violates NPOV, because such merge would land undue weight on AOO – although AOO's claim is more prominent, it is not that prominent. Saying that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" is plain wrong either; it should be marked as "superceded" by both Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice projects instead. P.S.: this article already serves the role of broad concept article. We are not facing a situation when some urgent fix is required (apart from "discontinued" state in infobox). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for a thoughtful response, czarkoff. I appreciate it. Discontent with the angle the article has taken has been simmering for months. So, no - no urgent action is needed.

The "discontinued" element is a very obvious POV statement but the perspective that lies behind it is pervasive throughout the article (e.g. "OpenOffice.org (OOo), commonly known as OpenOffice, was an open-source office suite." Was? Has it not just been renamed?)

You're right that the article as it stands is close to a broad-concept article. And would be a good jumping off point. But that pervasive POV would need to be attended to and the article would have to begin clearly from the position of a broad concept (e.g. "The OpenOffice open-source productivity suite was first released by Sun Microsystem in 2000. It continues today as two major branches, Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice, as well as numerous forks.") --Tóraí (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article should describe the period of this progam's history starting with its forking from StarOffice and ending with its split into Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice, making clear that both events are only fragments of a general timescale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

...and ending with its split into Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice... - What I would imagine as a broad concept article (and this is a new thought I'm putting out there) is that this article wouldn't stop there. Let it continue past the point of the schism and take a netural line - or make no comment - on which branch is the one true "OpenOffice".

It more or less does that already, except that it begins from the primise that this article is about a discrete item of software, rather than the code base, history and community effort (e.g. Debian vs. Linux). Since that code base, history and community effort is still living (in Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice) so the article would continue to track past the date of the schism.

If you are interested, I can do up a subpage with the sort of tweaks that would angle the article more in that direction? --Tóraí (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just make changes to the article and post a diff here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

czarkoff, sorry for no getting back. Was very busy IRL. Will read through the comments above and make a stab at a proposal for a broad topic-style direction. --Tóraí (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be a self-imposed topic ban for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 - repeated proposals against consensus in multiple venues, clear evidence (already noted) of not understanding the topic area or its jargon - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The majority view (and legally backed fact) has always been that ownership of OpenOffice has been transferred from Oracle to Apache and therefore OO is not discontinued software with two legitimate successors (just that 4.0 is a new major version of the same software, released under a new owner). So don't act as if you were the guardian of consensus here. You're not and you have always worked against the majority, reverting everything that does not fit in your personal worldview.

Let's be clear: The edits claiming that OpenOffice.org was ended and that Apache OpenOffice was a fork are not the consensual starting point here. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

However, given the string of "oppose merge" above, it's clearly the consensus right now that the articles are better separated - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That was clear last February. This thread was on the issue of the statement in the article that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued". Then Walter opened an RfC on whether Apache OpenOffice should be merged in here. Before then, the last person to write the word "merge" on this page was you, on 3 February 2014. --Tóraí (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the reason. There were comments that it has been discontinued. And now we have a second consensus that the products are separate and this has been discontinued. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I replied below. --Tóraí (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 The sense of ownership and battleground mentality from David and Walter is palpable. Their contributions here make the article and talk page a very hostile environment for anyone with a view that does not accord with theirs. I've a thick skin but the very personal nature of their hostility - being directed not just at removing countervailing views but also countervailing editors - is insidious to positive collaboration over this article. --Tóraí (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

czarkoff, here you go. I only reworked the introduction because it is bound to be reverted but this is the kind of approach I mean. --Tóraí (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You should have self-reverted as the proposal that it is (and particularly given consensus above is strongly against your proposals) - I've reverted it in the meantime. (I note your sample is sloppy and rather ungrammatical) - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Typical… Once again you claim authority over this topic… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

He has the right to be bold. We have the right to revert. We should then discuss. I would like to discuss a topic ban for Tóraí. Any seconders? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

David, I initially proposed to do up a subpage as example. Dmitrij suggested I do it in on the page itself. Doing so was useful to the extent that KAMiKAZOW|'s edit shows that there is support for a direction like it.

"...and particularly given consensus above is strongly against your proposal..." What proposal? There was an RfC above about something no-one was proposing (i.e. to merge the two articles). How about we pull our heads out of the trenches for long enough to recognise what others are raising issue with? As it is, there seems to be a large extent to which some people here are warring with shadows.

The RfC did produced some useful comments, however. For example:

• "...a better formulation is worth seeking if one exists that avoids endorsing one of the points of view..." - ClareTheSharer
• "Saying that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" is plain wrong ..." - Czarkoff
• "If anything should be merged at all it would be StarOffice and OpenOffice.org as the now defunct historic predecessors of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and others." - 46.59.207.137

Even you, yourself, say the article is subject to a "a highly-disputed POV". Currently, we do not walk the line of NPOV. We fall very heavily on one side of that POV dispute (i.e. "discontinued"). That POV was challenged by the original two posters to this thread and others before them. --Tóraí (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This primarily demonstrates quote mining rather than working with others. I'm afraid it comes across as tendentious and showing little understanding of the points of the people you are quoting - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of possible COI motivation of select editors

Torai lies here[1] --- he works for IBM in Ireland. This is why he has done all the edits to Openoffice to merge it with Apache Openoffice an IBM project. This is commercial posting and abuse of administrator powers --- see how he threatens other users on Talk:OpenOffice.org. 85.255.234.10 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is true at all, this is WP:OUTING. Anyway, whatever reasons drive Tóraí, discussions on Wikipedia are driven by worth of arguments, so there is no need to worry – if his arguments won't convince other editors, he will fail in this attempt; otherwise that'll be community's decision to merge these articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it OUTING or WP:COI?

He doesn't want the articles merged, he wants the claim that the original projected ended and that the Apache project is not a new project but rather a continuation of this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume for a second that he is a COI editor. And so what? How does this affect his arguments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. First off, I don't work for IBM. And I never have. Second, instead of being hung up on what motivates others, as Czarkoff notes, we should be examining the merits of (source based) arguments, including our own arguments.

From my experience, the interaction on this page is unfortunately combative and has little to no sense of collaboration or joint purpose (unless two editors are approaching an issue from the same perspective).

We should be trying to arrive at consensus. Instead, I get a sense that some editors here are more motivated to hold a line and drive out (or disregard or ignore) opposing views, no matter how reasonable or well argued. --Tóraí (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's not flood this discussion. There are WP:COIN and WP:AN/I for those who believe that administrative intervention is required. Every off-topic paragraph, and specifically thread like this, only makes the discussion more verbose. I boldly end this branch right here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of RfC

This thread was on the issue of the statement in the article that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued". Then Walter opened an RfC on whether Apache OpenOffice should be merged in here. --Tóraí (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the reason. There were comments that it has been discontinued. And now we have a second consensus that the products are separate and this has been discontinued. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Discontinued"

The only contributors to mention the word "discontinued" were myself, Czarkoff, ClareTheSharer, and Roches. Myself and Czarkoff agreed that to described it as discontinued is wrong. Clare suggests a different formulation ("discontinued with active successors" or "a better formulation"). And Roches said that "future releases [of OpenOffice] will be in Apache OpenOffice" (so not discontinued?).

In any case, an RfC is no way to avoid fundamental policy, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability. The statement that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" is currently unsupported and may be removed at any time.

Continuity of projects

Most respondent talked about continuity (or not) between the projects. Of these, the majority (ClareTheSharer, 46.59.207.137, David Gerard, Protonk) saw no continuity between them. Czarkoff saw it as more nuanced ("same project from legal standpoint" but "many see LibreOffice as a true successor"). KAMiKAZOW and myself, didn't see it as meaningful to subject matter.

That raises a question: What is the article about: A project? A software suite? (Or a particular version of a software suite?)

Broad concept / historical article

Another notable theme was the idea of this article being reinvented as a broad concept / historical article. I discussed this with Czarkoff. This theme was also raised by Clare, 46.59.207.137, and Protonk (so a majority of respondents in total). For example:

• "The best compromise seems to be ... a history article describing StarOffice and OpenOffice.org and articles describing the now-divergent successor projects." - Clare

• "If anything should be merged at all it would be StarOffice and OpenOffice.org as the now defunct historic predecessors of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and others." - 46.59.207.137

• "In this instance it could be feasible to have one article on "OpenOffice" which covers LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and NeoOffice in sections." - Protonk

I personally think that would be a useful approach to explore. It would enable us to avoid having to fall on one-side-or-the-other of the apparent POV divide.

I think it would be worth exploring but I wonder if there's sufficient willingness to do so from regular contributors here?

--Tóraí (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara: --Tóraí (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, you are quotemining from the actual discussion. Your repeated proposals have no more consensus than they've had any time this year - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What "repeated proposals"? I proposed a merge in October last year. You were the only respondent then. There was a little more traffic to this talk page afterwards so in January I raised the question again by way of discussion. In January also, I separately proposed that OpenOffice be redirected to Apache OpenOffice.

In the discussion that ensued on this article, three out of five participants (myself, Palu and KAMiKAZOW) expressed dissatisfaction with this article (beyond the question of a merger). On Talk:OpenOffice there was a clear consensus to keep that as a dab page.

Now, how does one merger proposal and a requested move on a different page add up to "repeated proposals" here?

On the other hand, we still have dissatisfaction with this article (particularly around WP:V and WP:NPOV). Rather than addressing those for what they are, you are still showing a battlefield mentality and a sense of ownership over this article. So, why won't you take yourself out of your trench and work with others so that we can reach a consensus position here? --Tóraí (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

[@Palu: pinging participant to January discussion.] --Tóraí (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Tóraí: I am profoundly displeased that my comment has been selectively quoted to make it seem as though I'm supporting a provision which I never supported. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Protonk: I didn't mean to misrepresent you. If I have, please accept by apology. So you know, the reason I linked each person I quoted was so they would know how I had quoted them and could comment here one way or another.

  For clarity (even if just for my benefit) what did you mean by the last two sentences of your comment? ("In this instance it could be feasible to have one article on 'OpenOffice' which covers LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and NeoOffice in sections. However there's no policy which requires us to do so.")

  For clarity too, I didn't mean (or intend to make it seem) that you supported this idea. Just that "[this] theme was also raised" by you. --Tóraí (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  The first sentence was a clarification of the one which preceded it. The broader point was that no policy or broad practice proscribes merging these articles into one and (here the emphasis on "could" in my original is important) should editors support it and it have a reasonable content justification it could happen. But I didn't see broad support for it and I don't have enough experience to rule out some content problem making the merge undesirable. In other words, there isn't a proscription against the merge because of the differences in leadership/ownership but there wasn't a strong reason to do it either.

  The second sentence was an attempt to further hem in this claim. Just as there wasn't a policy which prevented the merge there wasn't one which required it. That means that the decision is largely or purely editorial and should be discussed on those merits. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Protonk: Ah. I read it as a separate point. That, even without a merge, this article here could be a type of broad concept article. That was an idea that had emerged in an exchange between myself and Czarkoff and I thought your last two sentences were a reference to that discussion.

  I've struck where I quoted you above. --Tóraí (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. Insofar as it relates to that other point it does so because the same principle remains true between them. There is no hard limit against what you propose or a strong policy/guideline requiring it. Whether and how to do it will have to remain a discussion on how best to balance and present the content which could (as I see it) be done with separate articles and a summary topic or without the summary topic and a merged article (or any combination of the above). As an aside, the reason I came down hard on you is that beside from my quote, it appears as though you've selectively quoted two other participants in the discussion (both of whom appear to be uninvolved like me). In general you should be very careful eliding fragments or sentences from quotes where they may change the meaning and when doing so you may want to (though not always) ping the editor you're quoting before you quote them or shortly thereafter to make sure you've gotten the meaning right. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  ...when doing so you may want to (though not always) ping the editor you're quoting... That's why I linked the name of everyone I quoted.

  ...which could (as I see it) be done with separate articles and a summary topic or without the summary topic and a merged article (or any combination of the above). And since a merge is definitely off the cards that leaves the broad concept idea. No, there's no guideline or policy requiring it. However, the idea strikes me as a way to side-step the current POV impasse. If there two POVs — one that OpenOffice is discontinued and another that it is not — then it's hard to reconcile the two in an article such as this right now. However, if the article was reframed as a broad concept then we could start from the position that OpenOffice continues to exist in some form and then present both POVs (that it exists today either as successor projects or as a continuation and forks).

  We are required to present a neutral point of view. And I think we are currently in a bind because of that. --Tóraí (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well it didn't register a notification for me. I didn't notice it until I circled back to the discussion later. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Humph. Sorry about that. I thought it would come through if I just linked your name like this: Protonk.. Anyway, what do you think about the merits or otherwise of the broad concept idea? --Tóraí (talk) 08:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested moves

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move OpenOffice.org to OpenOffice, per the discussion below, although there seems to be support for converting OpenOffice to a WP:DABCONCEPT. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

---

• OpenOffice.org → OpenOffice
• OpenOffice → OpenOffice (disambiguation)

– Per the article, the common name of OpenOffice.org is "OpenOffice". Every title currently on the disambiguation page is either a kind of OpenOffice.org product, service, or creation, or a non-title match (Office Open XML is spaced and in a different order, and could not properly be referred to as "OpenOffice"; I see no evidence that anyone ever refers to the "open office plan" by this unspaced camel-case usage. bd2412 T 20:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: See previous discussion from February at Talk:OpenOffice#Requested_move - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The common name of two different products is OpenOffice and we must differentiate between the two. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Two unrelated products? If they are related, then the place to differentiate between them is in an article that explains the relationship. bd2412 T 21:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons stated by bd2412 and also because a WP:DABCONCEPT article at OpenOffice may be a basis for over-coming the apparently intractable POV issues here, while maintaining separate LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice articles. --Tóraí (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, for reasons stated on this page and Talk:OpenOffice in the twice this has already come around this year. BD2412. please read and familiarise yourself with past perennial requests - David Gerard (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there is a reason that the request is perennial. bd2412 T 22:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps there is, and it could just be those requesting it don't like the answer they get every time they make the request. I know you want us to say that it's because there are a few editors who "control" or "manipulate" the proceedings, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I have never participated in a move request relating to this title before. I mean that sometimes requests for a specific action are perennial because that action makes sense to people arriving at the situation independently. bd2412 T 23:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose why OOo instead of Apache's? -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I agree that OpenOffice.org's common name is OpenOffice, that would only warrant a move if this were the primary topic, which doesn't seem to be the case. Between this and Apache OpenOffice, which is also more commonly referred to as simply "OpenOffice", I don't think there is a clear case that one or the other should be such a primary topic that it supersedes the disambiguation page as to which topic belongs at OpenOffice. - Aoidh (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  A "primary topic" is one reason to have a single article at OpenOffice. Another reason is "broad concept" article. Given the nebulous relationship between these softwares (OpenOffice.org, Apache OpenOffice, StarOffice, and forks such as LibreOffice, and NeoOffice, etc.) there's definitely scope for one broad-concept article while maintaining the individual articles on specific distributions. --Tóraí (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  That is a very good and workable solution. bd2412 T 22:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose if there is a candidate for a primary topic it would be Apache OpenOffice as its a current product rather than a historical one.--Salix alba (talk): 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Gotta agree with Salix alba. The main "OpenOffice" version right now is AOO. If someone is looking for "OpenOffice", then they're probably looking for information about the current version, not a page on its history. Ultimately, I think the optimal solution is moving AOO to OpenOffice and moving this page to "History of OpenOffice" (or something similar). 65.92.13.155 (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: OpenOffice needs to be WP:DABCONCEPT page, clearly distinguishing between the OpenOffice.org suite, the Apache OpenOffice one, and also cluing people into LibreOffice and NeoOffice, also part of the same source tree.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Second RfC, this time on NPOV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this article present its information in a neutral way or is there an issue related to promoting a specific POV? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• It represents one view disproportionately The article doesn't fairly represent views published by the Apache Foundation (Apache OpenOffice has been in existence since October 13th, 2000) or secondary sources such as ZDNet (e.g. OpenOffice under new management - the Apache Software Foundation). It describes the software and project as being "discontinued" as if that was the consensus view of reliable sources. Additionally, there is a problem (that cannot be surmounted by a local conensus) in that the article currently lacks a source for the claim that the software is "discontinued". --Tóraí (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For the record: I agree with Tóraí’s view on this matter by 100%. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• It represents the sources - every one of which I've actually read. (Tóraí took some time on that score, and still doesn't show understanding of the subject area, which I'd consider pretty important.) I see no reason to unduly weight the Apache opinion, though it is stated clearly - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Second RFC discussion

To inform this RfC better, what is the source to support the statement that the software is "discontinued" (or to talk about it in the past tense)? --Tóraí (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is BS. It's typical Görlitz – trying to subvert WP rules to work in his favor. Not only had every single discussion the outcome that the majority view Apache OpenOffice as continuation of Oracle's OpenOffice (just under new owners), it is also a legal fact! In his typical style he now thinks he has stretched out the discussion long enough that everybody else became tired of discussing with him. Apache is the latest owner of OpenOffice. Previous owners were Sun and then Oracle. That was, is, and stays a legal fact. Free speech allows people to deny that fact, just as creationists are allowed to deny evolution. Such BS just has no place in an encyclopedia.

Discussion closed. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those discussions I'd just as soon not get involved in but there's so much animosity thus far that I'm drawn to it like a moth to a flame, especially when an editor takes it upon himself to declare it closed. Since it's NOT closed, I'll weigh in. OpenOffice (a software suite of open source office applications which Oracle bequeathed to Apache in 2011) is very much still an active software product, still available for download and still in open source format. Referring to it as a "discontinued" product is neither accurate nor helpful. I personally think the entire OpenOffice.org article is poorly named, causing much of this discord I read above. OpenOffice.org is a website. The product always has been (and remains) simply OpenOffice. The product has never been called OpenOffice.org. To sum it up, the whole article should be renamed and merged into Apache Open Office as a section on its History. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 00:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

A note on naming: it was never properly called "OpenOffice", as that was someone else's trademark - only casually. The software from Sun/Oracle was "OpenOffice.org"; the software from Apache is "Apache OpenOffice". This is covered and referenced in the article. We shouldn't go inventing names for things - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • I don't know much about Open Office- the article seems pretty neutral to me. For whatever it is worth, I took away that it is an open source version of commonly used pc software that was developed over a number of years and has become less commonly used (presumably because of cloud based applications). To me this seems like a strangely passionate fight about something relatively minor. Again- I am offering a lay person's perspective in hopes that it can be useful to this discussion. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• The article at the moment seems a bit skewed wrt POVs. But as a non OpenOffice user, it could be incorrect. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article until August 2013 we had a single article covering both OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice. Then the articles were split off into two separate articles.[2][3] This split represents two view: we can think of OpenOffice as a single software product which has undergone some rebranding and has changed hands a couple of times, from Sun to Oracle to Apache. As an end user of the product it has seemed like the same product I just get downloads from different places. The other view is that we treat it as two products drawing a clear line when Apache took it over. Given the amount of work which has gone it to the articles since the split I don't think they should be merged again. But I do think the lead does not adequately summarise the history. Just saying "Active successor projects include Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and NeoOffice." is too week a link. --Salix alba (talk): 07:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• The bot sent me. I think it does a disservice to our readers to suggest that there is any substantial development proceeding on OpenOffice until reflected in reliable sources. We should be steering people towards LibreOffice which is far superior, better maintained, and less buggy in my experience. If the reliable sources do not reflect my experience, I would be astonished. EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• also from the bot -- I do not know anything much about this computer software. what I read from above and from the article and from the website itself is that this software has changed hands often and has clearly not been discontinued. imho, one needs to look at WP:RS again with emphasis on the word neutral. The openoffice name is also registered trademark, the way legal citations are handled when primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. In this case, whatever the owner of the trademark says is where the weight lies. The word and all references to discontinued has to be removed. It has the potential of damaging the brand, reducing the trademark value and has potential legal implications for Wikipedia. Anyway, my singular bot solicited opinion. Zarpboer (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• For context, this site explains that OpenOffice.org was started by Oracle and eventually split into Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice. Ars Technica explains that there was a lot of conflict involved in this and the situation is complicated. Therefore, our coverage should accurately reflect the complexity, as oppose to being as simple as "discontinued" or not. Sources do confirm that Oracle has discontinued its investments of development resources, but the sources I found at-a-glance positioned the new forks as continuations or forks of the original. This discussion would be strengthened if the involved editors provided sources to support their claims. CorporateM (Talk) 01:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see no reason to choose Apache Foundation's position over Document Foundation's. The fact of legal ancesty is just one of the components of ancesty overall, and in this case actually the only one in favor of Apache's POV. LibreOffice, on the other hand, claims to preserving the opensource values behind OpenOffice, which were obviously and unambiguously tained by Oracle in Apache's line. If I had to pick one to claim ancestor, given the history of OpenOffice in Sun Microsystems, I would pick LibreOffice over Apache with no doubt. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  The Apache Foundation doesn't preserve open-source values because they are "tainted" by Oracle? Seems quite an emotional argument. You're also forgetting the practical sense ancestry, such as the website the software is downloaded from (still www.openoffice.org) and the fact that LibreOffice decidedly forked from the Oracle project whereas Apache were handed the project in a transfer of ownership (legal rigamarole aside).

  You have an argument that is well supported in moral terms (included in some RS) but which isn't the sole point of view. And certainly not clearly the dominant POV. It's hard to know, which, if either, is the dominant point of view.

  And that's the nub of the question here. Are we presenting all significant points of view neutrally? You appear to advocate that we should present one POV over another (the "LibreOffice" take vs the "Apache OpenOffice" take) as opposed to an NPOV. That's not how we do things, no matter the strength of our emotions. --Tóraí (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, you misread my statement: I don't suggest to state that LibreOffice is the sole ancestor of OOo. I suggest to avoid pushing any of these POVs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. I read the last sentence in particular as suggesting to state exactly that. --Tóraí (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  It was supposed to mean that I find LO's claims stronger then those of AOO. But we are not facing situation when either only LO or only AOO should be covered. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  It's not an either/or situation (or at least dones't have to be) - but does the current set-up (of describing OOo as being "discontinued" and talking about it in the past tense) neutrally all significant points of view? What about the AOO point of view? --Tóraí (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  The original project, OpenOffice.org, is discontinued while Apache OpenOffice, which owns the domain, is still active. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Is there a source that says it is "discontinued"? Here is a source that says OpenOffice.org was simply renamed. --Tóraí (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

He will dig out some blog post that confirms him, however he won't be able to show proper legal documents to prove his point because there aren't any. In corporate terms OpenOffice.org was "taken over" by Apache. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, he won't and it's inappropriate to make personal attacks like that so perhaps you could avoid that in the future. I'm not going to argue with either of you on this. You don't accept the evidence that has been offered. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What evidence? Is there a source that says it is "discontinued"? --Tóraí (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• The Document Foundation's official viewpoint is that LibreOffice is a spiritual successor to OpenOffice, and that OpenOffice is now owned by Apache. They are rebasing their code on the latest version of Open Office ( https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Development/Re-Basing ) in order to change their license. The Document Foundation does not claim ownership over the OpenOffice code, and does not claim that OpenOffice is discontinued. At most they claim that many of the original devs for OpenOffice followed them to their fork. OpenOffice wasn't discontinued when it transferred from Sun to Oracle, and it wasn't discontinued when it transferred from Oracle to Apache. There is a substantial difference between transferring ownership of the code (which allows you to change the license for future versions, as Apache did, and dual-license previous versions at will) and forking (which only allows you to act within the limits of the license that it is under). To claim that OpenOffice is discontinued is not only inaccurate, but disingenuous. 65.92.13.155 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  On the topic of how the Document Foundation view this, the Document Foundation wiki describes the situation thus, "In early June 2011 the source code and all trademark rights was given to the Apache Foundation. OpenOffice.org continues to be developed significantly there, with IBM as a major contributor." And LibreOffice is described as, "LibreOffice was created by The Document Foundation, based on Apache OpenOffice, which is Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation." --Tóraí (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding new link

Hi, I am the owner of http://www.spreadsheetformula.org/. All material on that website is legally registered under my name. It is a free website, which services OpenOffice users transfering to Calc from Excel. I have been unable to upload the link properly. Please help fix the link error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.109.65 (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that it does not meet the criteria at WP:EL:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

The links to your website don't add any research or anything encyclopedic to the article. It almost appears as though you're attempting to publicize your site. That's not what Wikipedia is for. I too removed it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest

May I offer this space for contributors who might wish to disclose their potential conflict of interest with regard to the present article and related ones. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: www.OpenOffice.org should redirect to Apache OpenOffice

To reflect current DNS assignment, as per WHOIS, [4]. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• While this redirect is not retargeted as proposed, I've put a hatnote on OpenOffice.org warning users coming after www.OpenOffice.org: [5]. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• As no objections were raised, I've implemented the change proposed: [6],[7]. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Should OpenOffice be a broad-concept article?

From the previous discussion (#Requested moves): "The result of the move request was: (...) there seems to be support for converting OpenOffice to a WP:DABCONCEPT." Would you support the motion that "OpenOffice needs to be WP:DABCONCEPT page, clearly distinguishing between the OpenOffice.org suite, the Apache OpenOffice one, and also cluing people into LibreOffice and NeoOffice, also part of the same source tree." -- @BD2412, Tóraí, Salix alba, SMcCandlish, Walter Görlitz, and David Gerard: thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support this idea. The seemingly intentional confusion of the name of the organization, the name of its website, and the name of its software is bad enough, but the project has forked so many times in so many ways that hardly anyone can keep it straight. A DABCONCEPT overview is very much in order. It would be best to have this reside at OpenOffice; no one but ueber-nerds actually sticks the ".org" on the end of this, unless they're typing it into the address bar in their browser, and what people mean by "OpenOffice" is highly variable (if they are even themselves sure).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. It should be a DAB page that points to other concepts related to OpenOffice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: - if you are referring to "other concepts related to OpenOffice" then it would not be a disambiguation page, which is a collection of unrelated concepts that share the same name. Perhaps you are thinking of a set index. bd2412 T 19:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This article used to be at OpenOffice, but the name of the software was in fact OpenOffice.org with the ridiculous dot-org appendix on the end, and Sun were very careful about this even if casual usage wasn't (per refs in the article) - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Note the previous rejection of the move proposal about a year ago; Fgnievinski would need to show a change in circumstances in that time - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly: that discussion ended with the consensus not to move (which is no longer under discussion) and the indication of some support for converting OpenOffice to a WP:DABCONCEPT (which is indeed the present proposal). So far I counted two votes against the motion (Walter Görlitz and David Gerard) and three votes in favor (me, BD2412, and SMcCandlish). Fgnievinski (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That's rather odd counting - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

How would you count? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. We're not voting, we're making policy-based arguments for this change or not. As such, David Gerard has indicated that a move discussion has shown that the move discussion argued against what you're trying to do: change the purpose of the OpenOffice article. That was also my point. The suggestion that it should be a WP:DABCONCEPT page was roundly rejected and you're proposing that again. YOu have not offered a compelling reason and definitely not one from a policy or guideline. That's why this is going to fail. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to where WP:DABCONCEPT has been previously rejected, please? Based on the the last discussion (#Requested moves), the result was that "there seems to be support for converting OpenOffice to a WP:DABCONCEPT." Fgnievinski (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you show where it was accepted? That was one editor's request and as I read it, it was roundly rejected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be noted at Talk:OpenOffice - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OpenOffice's primary topic is the software; the document format is secondary -- agreed? Such a primary topic is a broad concept, because there are many closely-related variants of that software. I suggest the Timeline of major derivatives of StarOffice be used to explain this briefly in OpenOffice. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is my concrete proposal for a stub-level broad-concept article dealing with the primary topic of OpenOffice (namely, the software): Talk:OpenOffice/Draft. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I could live with that draft, though I'm still not entirely convinced it's a better thing to have there than the present disambig - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless firm, well-explained rejections are articulated here, I plan to move the draft over main space in a couple of days. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: I'm a casual and uninvested observer of this discussion (in fact, I'm not even sure why this page is on my watchlist) and I recommend that you let an uninvolved person determine the consensus and resulting action. Threatening to take a disputed action if the quality of arguments doesn't impress you is not the way to go. --Laser brain (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Laser brain:: Pragmatism trumps obstructionism. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus trumps your attitude. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski: There is no consensus for said move and it would be inappropriate to do so. I already gave you a clear and well-explained rejection: It should be a DAB page that points to other concepts related to OpenOffice. Also, where is this draft? Let us review it. I will nominate any page that I feel does not meet a broad-content article for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WHY should it be a DAB instad of a BCA? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:OpenOffice/Draft. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I also forgot that there was a clear rejection of such a page a year ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Only a merge has been formally proposed before. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

And the discussion was that what you're suggesting, making an article where a DAB should be, is not appropriate. Sorry you don't see that. The image is nice and should be added to a generic article, but OpenOffice is not the place for it. I suggest creating a new article discussing the history of OpenOffice instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: WHY there should be a DAB instead of a BCA? I cannot read your mind, you have to spell it out. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what the most recent discussion was about: "The result of the move request was: consensus not to move OpenOffice.org to OpenOffice, per the discussion below, although there seems to be support for converting OpenOffice to a WP:DABCONCEPT. Dekimasu?! 02:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)" and in the earlier discussion two editors specifically stated, "Nothing should happen to DAB at OpenOffice" and "On Talk:OpenOffice there was a clear consensus to keep that as a dab page." I'm sorry you missed those discussions. The fully context of both is listed above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

DAB was a clear winner over a previous merger proposal; the present proposal is for a BCA instead. So far I haven't seen a single argument, old or new, from you or anyone else, against a short BCA -- where "argument" implies stating why you think a DAB is better than a BCA. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

And you need a clear mandate to move forward with your prop proposal and you do not have one. You have two who are opposed because the consensus was to make this a DAB. Period. We don't need any other argument, but you need consensus. However, we have provided you with an argument and yet, you still don't have consensus. Make a new page, but don't hijack this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, since you seem to have missed it, there were previous discussions about making this a broad concept article and all have been rejected. The first was in the "January 2014 merge discussion". In the RfC on the topic I specifically stated "what to do with the current disambiguation page" and the discussion specifically included, "this article should describe the period of this progam's history" and there's even a section to discuss a "Broad concept / historical article". Rejected. Rejected. And now your suggestion has also been rejected unless you can gain unqualified support and consensus to change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Walter. You really don't have consensus for this proposed radical change, and saying "satisfy me personally or I'll proceed" is not really appropriate behaviour - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OpenOffice.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for ooo.ximian.com/ooo-build.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:43, 4 September 2015 (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 [8] 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 Wikipedia 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)

Do a number of users favour a split between OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice articles? If so, it must not be because they are "completely different projects". Go to the OpenOffice.org website, you find Apache OpenOffice. It is POV to say that the OpenOffice.org is defunct and Apache OpenOffice is a completely different project, derived from the OpenOffice.org project. It is a fact that the OpenOffice.org project was handed over to the Apache Software Foundation, which is actively developing it. Make a separate article for the Apache project? Fine, you can link to the new page as the continuation of the previous project. It creates incredible confusion to say that OpenOffice.org is defunct or moribund, when it is actually and actively being developed under a different license by the Apache Software Foundation. So I'm not going to contest the fact of Apache OpenOffice having it's own page, but I will contest the incorrect information in the infobox about the OpenOffice.org project being defunct. It is being actively developed as Apache, so just link to the Apache OpenOffice page as the active development of the previous project! That there are also other active projects derived from the previous project is all fine and dandy, they may be even coming along very nicely, but still doesn't take from the fact that "OpenOffice.org" === "Apache OpenOffice" (triple equals will be understood by programmers among us.) Lwangaman (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2015 (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)

I beg to differ. Calling them different projects is incorrect. Go to the OpenOffice.org website, what do you find? You find Apache Open Office. Calling them different projects is POV. Lwangaman (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If you came here from a call-to-action on the Apache OpenOffice dev mailing list, it would be proper to note any conflicts of interest - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering what your interests are in this? I am not a member of the Apache Software Foundation, I am a simple lone developer as well as contributor to Wikipedia. I have no partiality between LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice, both are very good projects. But look at this objectively: who has the OpenOffice.org website? It's objective that OpenOffice.org is continued by Apache OpenOffice. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY project that continues development, in fact it is clear from the diagram posted on the article page that there are a number of derivative projects but that Apache OpenOffice inherits the OpenOffice.org project. You on the other hand seem to be quite intent on affirming that Apache OpenOffice DOES NOT have any legal rights to the OpenOffice.org project. Why do they have the OpenOffice.org website then? You need to give objective answers to your own affirmations. And you mustn't revert edits that have founded references, unless you give a founded reference that confutes the reliability of those edits. From what I have learned of the history of these projects (because I'm learning by reading up, not because I'm a direct member of either one), LibreOffice has actually incorporated quite a bit of code from Apache OpenOffice; there is a collaboration between the two projects. So I'm still wondering, what do you have at stake in this? Lwangaman (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

My interest is in an appropriate and useful Wikipedia article. Please note that claiming a conflict of interest with no grounds to do so is a personal attack, and you should probably stop doing that.

I note also that all your sources are primary sources - your claims of sourcing thus fail WP:RS, WP:V. There are uses for primary sources, but when they are the only source making a claim in the face of extensive third-party sourcing, they fail. The opinion of primary sources should sometimes be noted, and it turns out in this case it is already noted - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, I think it was you that claimed COI in your comment, not me. So if that is to be considered a personal attack, sounds like it's on you? My interest is also a clean wikipedia article that does not ingenerate confusion in the ordinary reader. Any ordinary reader who comes to this page and sees "project defunct" really doesn't know what to make of it, then they go to the OpenOffice.org webpage and see that there are recent releases, so it is not defunct. That is confusing. And I don't see how referring to the OpenOffice.org website can be considered unreliable. Perhaps there is opinions that it has been unduly taken over by the Apache Software Foundation? Lwangaman (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to note, that some kind of consensus seems to have been reached on this talk page in the past about splitting the article into separate articles for OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice. I believe that is a different issue than that of giving incorrect information in the infobox. One thing is trying to keep an article clean by moving a substantial amount of information into a secondary article; another thing is turning that into a debate about whether Apache OpenOffice is to be rebuked as the continuation of the OpenOffice.org project. Just because there are other projects around that may be doing quite well, does not mean the OpenOffice.org project was not handed over to the Apache Software Foundation. So it becomes very confusing and tending towards POV to claim that the OpenOffice.org project is defunct and that Apache OpenOffice has nothing to do with it. In that case the diagram on this page should be modified too, because it currently reflects a continuity. And on that note, why are Sun Microsystems and Oracle Corporation indicated as successors of this project? Shouldn't Oracle get it's own page too in that case? Lwangaman (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on OpenOffice.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110415090729/http://www.novell.com:80/prblogs/?p=3095 to http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=3095

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely out of date

Needs updating, with cites. At least to be about the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

New projects are at different pages, per the headers and intro section. You may wish to review this talk page and its archives in detail - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC

It's even more out of date now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.109.216 (talk • contribs)

Version information at the top template remains out of date. Abb3w (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a common confusion, but no, it's not. It's accurate from when the project was discontinued. You're thinking of Apache OpenOffice. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 49 external links on OpenOffice.org. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://why.openoffice.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-online.com/open/features/OpenOffice-at-the-crossroads-1023702.html?page=2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-online.com/open/features/OpenOffice-splits-and-pirouettes-1270296.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2640108,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=43485&scopelist=PROGRAMME
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-online.com/open/features/LibreOffice-A-fresh-page-for-OpenOffice-1097358.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/statements-on-openofficeorg-contribution-to-apache-nasdaq-orcl-1521400.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927083420/https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/bcde08b8-816c-42a8-aa37-5f1ce02470a9/entry/symphony_is_alive_and_well_and_living_at_apache_explaining_ibm_s_document_strategy1?lang=en_us to https://www-304.ibm.com/connections/blogs/bcde08b8-816c-42a8-aa37-5f1ce02470a9/entry/symphony_is_alive_and_well_and_living_at_apache_explaining_ibm_s_document_strategy1?lang=en_us
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://council.openoffice.org/councilcharter12.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://council.openoffice.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/guidelines.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/FAQs/faq-other.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.broffice.org/sobre
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://download.openoffice.org/all_beta.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://porting.openoffice.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/sys_reqs_20.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://software.newsforge.com/software/05/09/20/1840248.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/centers/adric/nlp/downloads/4NNLPRS/pdf/paper16.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://projects.gnome.org/ooo/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kde.openoffice.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/download/common/java.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sun.com/2006-1113/feature/story.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://theopencd.sunsite.dk/programs-v1.4/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/openoffice_org_2_4_features
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/1.0.0/release_notes_1.0.0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/news.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/ooo-osx_downloads.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2153630/openoffice-zooms-lagging
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vnunet.com/personal-computer-world/software/2140229/openoffice-org
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerworld.com.my/PrinterFriendly.aspx?articleid=2742&issueid=94&pubid=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/195766
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.toptechnews.com/news/OpenOffice-org-2-0-Release-Delayed/story.xhtml?story_id=03100339SMZN
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://stats.openoffice.org/spreadsheet/OOo-2007-09-01.ods
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2007-05/sunflash.20070523.2.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://world.einnews.com/pr_news/61139143/open-source-software-defends-itself-against-looming-shut-down
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/ASF-says-OpenOffice-org-is-in-good-health-1362079.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054858/http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2012/05/open-source-suites-highly-active/index.htm to http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2012/05/open-source-suites-highly-active/index.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.openoffice.org/about/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.documentfoundation.org/contact/tdf_release.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=3095
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ooo.ximian.com/ooo-build.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929232956/http://www.tuxdeluxe.org/node/184 to http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/184
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502012130/http://www.linuxsymposium.org/archives/OLS/Reprints-2004/Reprint-Meeks-OLS2004.pdf to http://www.linuxsymposium.org/archives/OLS/Reprints-2004/Reprint-Meeks-OLS2004.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3794611_1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.go-oo.org/download/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Calling-a-cat-a-dog-746843.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)