Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Sep 2005 13:31 UTC, submitted by DittoBox
Features, Office On 2nd September 2005 Sun announced the retirement of the Sun Industry Standard Source License. As a consequence, no future Sun open-source project will use the SISSL. Projects currently using the SISSL under a dual-license scheme, such as OpenOffice.org, are dropping the SISSL and thus simplifying their license scheme as soon as the development cycle allows. Effectie with the announcement that Sun is retiring the SISSL, OpenOffice.org will in the future only be licensed under the LGPL (.pdf). A FAQ is also available.
Order by: Score:
v The way I see it
by joelito_pr on Mon 5th Sep 2005 14:11 UTC
RE: The way I see it
by Anonymous on Mon 5th Sep 2005 14:30 UTC in reply to "The way I see it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

They always had openoffice co-licenced LGPL, so it really doesn't change much

Reply Score: 4

Open standards
by timosa on Mon 5th Sep 2005 15:29 UTC
timosa
Member since:
2005-07-06

This also allows anyone to make OpenOffice file format part of their projects/products that should be good for open standars.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Open standards
by JCooper on Mon 5th Sep 2005 15:52 UTC in reply to "Open standards"
JCooper Member since:
2005-07-06

This also allows anyone to make OpenOffice file format part of their projects/products

Perhaps this is an attempt at encouraging the likes of Microsoft to incorporate their file format in Office 12?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Open standards
by Celerate on Mon 5th Sep 2005 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Open standards"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Personally I would love to see that since all the school computers use MS Office and I preffer to use OpenOffice.org at home. Although, it would be better if MS just borrowed the code out of OO.o without unecessary modification in that case to avoid "inconsistencies". I can just imagine all the broken OpenDocument files that'll be flying around out there if MS tries it's embrace, extend, and extinguish tactic on OO.o.

If MS office could save to, and open OpenDocument files just as well as OpenOffice.org then I would be less apprehensive about using the software. I don't care so much if the software I use isn't "open", but I want my documents which I save with it to be in a format I can open, edit, and save later on without any restrictions or software lock-in.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Open standards
by kaiwai on Mon 5th Sep 2005 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open standards"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The only way for Office to support the standard would be for the largest customers to come out and demand it; if the US government said, "we're not going to upgrade to your next version of Office unless you provide 100% backing to OpenDocument" - as soon as customers start doing that, Microsoft will quickly reverse their arrogant attitude.

As much as Microsoft loves to bullshit about their so-called 'leadership' in the IT world, they're as much to the demands and expectations of their customers, like any other company - if they don't deliver what customers want, don't expect people to upgrade - Windows Vista is going to be the same situation; Windows XP is now pretty stable and secure, coupled that with the push for better security, service pack 3 will most likely bundle alot of visible functionality, like IE7 and anti-spyware/malware; but in the end, when consumers compare, will they switch.

As for OpenOffice.org, I think the greater issue, for adoption by end users, isn't so much functionality but this perception that if they're not running Microsoft Office, they're running something second rate; when in reality, if ever end user was pragmatic about what they used their computer for, and instead used the package that did everything they wanted without being an overkill, you'd find that OpenOffice.org would win hands down everytime.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Open standards
by tiiim on Mon 5th Sep 2005 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open standards"
tiiim Member since:
2005-09-02

Well if Microsoft did support the use open standards then Microsoft office will still be popular if not more because then you can send a file to anybody ever. Now that would be nice. I personally though prefer office... not because im bias not at all, it just does what i want. Im not sure i'll upgrade to office 12 though unless Microsoft do something good. Microsoft Office is already very advance if Microsoft can spend more time making their current office even more user friendly and pull out those hidden tuck away features that would be alone worth an upgrade.

But hand on, arnt Microsoft, instead of embracing open documents arnt they creating their own, metro remember?

Oh look their's adobe.... (sorry bad joke ;) )

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Open standards
by kaiwai on Tue 6th Sep 2005 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open standards"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, I love using Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac; its a great piece of software and very reliable. I agree, nothing would be lost; if they made the Metro format for their whole office suit and BSD'ed the filter used in Microsoft Office, you'd find that Office would become even more popular!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open standards
by rm6990 on Tue 6th Sep 2005 00:10 UTC in reply to "Open standards"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

This also allows anyone to make OpenOffice file format part of their projects/products that should be good for open standars.

Considering the OASIS OpenDocument format is available to Open Source and Proprietary vendors alike, that is a moot point.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The way I see it
by Anonymous on Mon 5th Sep 2005 17:04 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

> This allows sun to take Open Office code and
> add closed extensios to it

Wrong! Please, stop spreading rumours about Sun's OOo licensing.

Rumours say the following:

1. Sun needs the SISSL in order to create the proprietary StarOffice product.
2. Sun exploits other people's work by creating proprietary products from it.
3. Sun puts pressure on developers to assign their copyright to Sun in order to be able to create a proprietary product from it.
4. The SISSL is not a Free Software license.

The truth is:

1. Sun does not need the SISSL for StarOffice. Sun licenses OpenOffice.org to itself under the GNU LGPL, as published and promoted by the Free Software Foundation. Anyone else can do the same.
2. Sun pays the bill almost alone and has the right to do that. By the way, anyone else can do the same - because of the LGPL!
3. No. Sun does the same as Trolltech and MySQL: They say "Nice patch, but if you don't assign the copyright to me, it's useless for me". That's all. Either flame Sun and Trolltech and MySQL or don't flame at all.
4. It is. Or, better said, it was until it was dropped.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: The way I see it
by joelito_pr on Mon 5th Sep 2005 18:41 UTC in reply to "RE: The way I see it"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

I never meant to flame but if you ask for it...

Trolltech could have used the LGPL long ago, they decided to go GPL(dual licensed) so they could get propietary devs to pay thousands per coder making closed source apps using the QT libraries (Or even devs that wish to build BSD QT apps), as for MySQL, as far as I know they don't make development libraries.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The way I see it
by oxygene on Mon 5th Sep 2005 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The way I see it"
oxygene Member since:
2005-07-07

mysql is embeddable - in which case you're bound by the linking restrictions.
there are also client libraries (for those apps interfacing with mysql) whose license status I don't know about - if they're GPL, your mysql-using application better be under a GPL compatible license

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: The way I see it
by John Nilsson on Mon 5th Sep 2005 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: The way I see it"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

1. Sun does not need the SISSL for StarOffice. Sun licenses OpenOffice.org to itself under the GNU LGPL, as published and promoted by the Free Software Foundation. Anyone else can do the same.

Err, why would they need to "license" code that they own to them selves?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The way I see it
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The way I see it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Err, why would they need to "license" code that they own to them selves?

1. To make it clear how the software is distributed.

2. To allow others who contribute to see how the contributions they make will be handled.

3. Along with #2...Sun is the primary contributor to OpenOffice.org (thanks you wonderful people at Sun!), though Sun is not the only group contributing.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: The way I see it
by John Nilsson on Tue 6th Sep 2005 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The way I see it"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

If they now "license" the code to them selves. You can't really call it a license since they aren't legally bound to the terms of license.

It sounds more like a public contract to mee.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The way I see it
by Anonymous on Wed 7th Sep 2005 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: The way I see it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If they now "license" the code to them selves. You can't really call it a license since they aren't legally bound to the terms of license.

It sounds more like a public contract to mee.


Why isn't it possible to hold them accountable to the licence they choose? I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about!

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: The way I see it
by John Nilsson on Wed 7th Sep 2005 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The way I see it"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Why isn't it possible to hold them accountable to the licence they choose? I'm not sure you understand what you're talking about!

It's called copyright. If they do use the code in a way that the license doesn't permit there is no legal way for you to force them to A) comply with the license, or B) stop using the code, they'll just say: "Well, uh, we own the code, we can do what we want with it.".

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: The way I see it
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: The way I see it"
Anonymous Member since:
---

If they now "license" the code to them selves. You can't really call it a license since they aren't legally bound to the terms of license.

Yes, they are.

1. They can't take back what they release under the licence.

2. They do not have copyright over everything in OpenOffice.org since they did not write everything in OpenOffice.org!

It sounds more like a public contract to mee.

Legally enforceable and binding. It states how the code can be distributed outside of default copyright law (which is you can't distribute it at all as you are not the copyright holder).

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: The way I see it
by John Nilsson on Wed 7th Sep 2005 04:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: The way I see it"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

It was stated earlier in this thread that SUN requires copyright to be assigned to them from all contributors.

If this is not true, then I stand correected.

While SUN can't revoke a license allready granted they aren't forced to follow it themsleves as long as they are the owners of the code.

A license is nothing more then legal protection for doing something that would otherwise be copyright infrigenment, if you don't need protection you don't need a license.

Reply Score: 1

does anybody know....?
by Anonymous on Mon 5th Sep 2005 17:44 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

How many people outside sun contribute to openoffice?

Reply Score: 0

RE: does anybody know....?
by zizban on Tue 6th Sep 2005 00:04 UTC in reply to "does anybody know....?"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Many. There is neofffice.org, which is the hQ for the Mac OS X development team, Nekochan.net for the Irix version, to name a few.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Open standards
by bact on Mon 5th Sep 2005 17:45 UTC
bact
Member since:
2005-07-06

OpenOffice.org 2.0 will use OpenDocument as its default/native file format.

OpenDocument itself is already an open standard.
(= even OOo is a close source/propietary ... everyone still able to share documents with OOo users .. as long as they use OpenDocument)

Reply Score: 1

RE: does anybody know....?
by bact on Mon 5th Sep 2005 17:47 UTC
bact
Member since:
2005-07-06

don't have numbers, but a lot.

at least the majority of the native-lang project is non-Sun (the native-lang project itself is one of the biggest projects in OOo).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: does anybody know....?
by MYOB on Mon 5th Sep 2005 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE: does anybody know....?"
MYOB Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you'll find, in all reality, that localisation just doesn't count. The vast majority of the actual -application- is written by Sun staff. Its that that matters, not the translations.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: does anybody know....?
by Anonymous on Wed 7th Sep 2005 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: does anybody know....?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Say that again in Urdu.

It doesn't matter if you speak English (or American). If you don't speak English, then the application is unusable.

Translation is a very significant part of software development, and one which is frequently ignored.
It's also an area where F/OSS software regularly beats commerical, closed-source software, because of the "itch-to-scratch" approach.

I run a minor Free Software project (speedtouchconf.sf.net) and have had a number of contributions of translations, and a little bit of code. The translations have a huge impact. Being able to use software in Portuguese, Spanish, German, or (better still) multi-byte languages like Traditional Chinese, is a huge factor.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: does anybody know....?
by Anonymous on Wed 7th Sep 2005 02:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: does anybody know....?"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I think you'll find, in all reality, that localisation just doesn't count. The vast majority of the actual -application- is written by Sun staff. Its that that matters, not the translations.

It actually does mean alot to me...as OpenOffice.org has been translated from German into English.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: does anybody know....?
by MYOB on Wed 7th Sep 2005 06:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: does anybody know....?"
MYOB Member since:
2005-06-29

It was available in English from StarDivision, so its not like Sun had to translate it from German to English. Although the code comments might have had to be worked on...

Reply Score: 1

I'm glad to hear it
by deathshadow on Mon 5th Sep 2005 17:51 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

In the age of everyone and their brother creating new open source licenses, I have to applaud the retirement of SISSL.

OSI was BANG ON in their recommendations, I'm glad to see at least ONE company was paying attention.

Reply Score: 5

Oh, I'd point out
by deathshadow on Mon 5th Sep 2005 17:53 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

That restricting the article to just OpenOffice is a touch narrow, as there were other SUN projects that were SISSL... all of which are now LGPL.

Go Sun!

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous
Member since:
---

None of the contributors have seemed to have got it yet. This is about one thing and one thing alone - IBM.

IBM has, under the SISSL license which allows binary only distribution of derivative works, forked OO to produce the IBM Editors for Workplace (the intended successor to Lotus Notes). This is a plugin for the Java based Workplace Rich Client Platform (RCP) which is basically the same as the open source Eclipse RCP released under the IBM Common Public License (CPL). It has not opened any of the code for the Workplace Editors (which are derived from OO) as under the SISSL it is not obliged to.

I think Sun is trying to force some of IBM's development of OO out into the open. Now with the release of OO 2 under the LGPL only, it will be obliged to open any OO code it modifies which is derived from any version of OO later than OO2Beta2. Personally I think it should release the OO derived IBM editors under the LGPL as a plugin for the Eclipse RCP, if it wishes to demonstrate its commitment to FOSS.

I don't know if IBM would like it but I think that Red Hat would be very interested in a OO based plugin for the Eclipse RCP. RH has developed a version of Eclipse that it distributes, which is compiled using GCJ as well as helping make the Java parts of OO 2 compilable with GCJ.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

If Sun chose to use the GPL instead of the SISSL or LGPL they wouldn't have this problem.

just pointing that out

Reply Score: 0

Open Document format converter
by Anonymous on Mon 5th Sep 2005 22:34 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Just wondering, is there an application out there that would do a batch document translation from MS Office to Open Document format? I don't think there's a big percentage of MS Office users use macros in their documents. A batch translation program to translate MS Office docs to Open Document format would help to make the documents/files to be more portable within and outside of an organization, plus would smooth a migration if an organization decides to take the route.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

Just wondering, is there an application out there that would do a batch document translation from MS Office to Open Document format?

It's built into OpenOffice.org.

1. Start OpenOffice.org. (I'm using OOo 2.0 beta 2, though I think it was in OOo 1.x also.)

2. Select File...Wizards...Document Converter.

3. Select either StarOffice (and OpenOffice 1.x) or Microsoft Office as the import format.

4. Select the types of documents you want convered;

* StarOffice: Text, Drawing/Presentation, Spreadsheets, Master documents/formulas.

* Microsoft Office: Word, Excel, PowerPoint.

5. Press Next.

6. Choose your templates, source and destination directories.

7. Convert the documents. (Will grab sub directories too!)

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

I've recently had to start using a tool which exports XLS spreadsheets, which current versions of Excel don't like... you need to disable all security to get these exported macros to work.

It's a PITA, because (a) I need to install (and license) Excel, and (b) I can't use OpenOffice.org to do this work, because the macros are so badly-written that they barely work with Excel, let alone OOo.

Granted, the app which exports these XLS files is crap in itself, and (hopefully) not representative of the company which produces it (for internal / partner use only) - they're a big hardware vendor.

Given this (anecdotal) example, some people would be hurt by the change. However, this is the first time in 7 years I've been forced to install Windows onto my work PC. I normally do 90% in Linux, 10% in Solaris

Reply Score: 0

Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 02:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The cool thing about this change is it forces the leeches in the open source community - those that contribute minimally, and commercialize everyone else's work - into the open. Red Hat and IBM - welcome to the reality of open source.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 03:00 UTC in reply to "Red Hat and IBM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

The cool thing about this change is it forces the leeches in the open source community - those that contribute minimally, and commercialize everyone else's work - into the open. Red Hat and IBM - welcome to the reality of open source.

I can see if you want to be real anal, dinging IBM is a vogue thing to do after all.

As for Red Hat...I defy you to show me ONE instance where Red Hat does not provide source for anything they sell in binary form.

Neither Red Hat nor IBM deserve this vennom.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Red Hat and IBM
by binarycrusader on Tue 6th Sep 2005 04:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Red Hat and IBM"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

As for Red Hat...I defy you to show me ONE instance where Red Hat does not provide source for anything they sell in binary form.

Look, I like RedHat as much as the next person, but I can name that one thing ;)

RedHat Satellite Server...it's not opensource. That's about all I can name, nothing else...

Reply Score: 1

v RE[3]: Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Red Hat and IBM"
RE[4]: Red Hat and IBM
by shotsman on Tue 6th Sep 2005 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Red Hat and IBM"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

RedHat do contribute to lots of GPL stuff. Just take a look at the number of kernel developers who are from RedHat. As far as leeching everything then you are so wrong.
Look at their purchase of netscape directory server. They paid money for it and then made it open source. If that is leeching then you should think about getting a different dictionary.
Take a break from trolling on OSNews and go visit /. Your comments would be more welcome there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Wed 7th Sep 2005 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Red Hat and IBM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Sorry for stating the obvious, which I'm sure you already know, but Sun bought StarSuite (which was, frankly, rather poor) and turned it into OpenOffice.org/StarOffice)

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 06:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Red Hat and IBM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

(Forgive me for feeding the trolls, but the non-stop anti-redhat rhetoric has got to stop)

Sorry, but Red Hat does TONS of development. They employ the maintainers of glibc, gcc, lvm, autotools, gfs, binutils, HA clustering, and on and on! They have contributed vast amounts of code to many major upstream projects including the kernel, OOo, GNOME, and many Xorg and fd.org projects. Major subsystems like NPTL and audit began at Red Hat. They've made java useable under gcc. Their installers, admin GUIs, and a thousand other things have always been open!

To accuse Red Hat of not embracing the GPL is just silly! They probably do more actual development on upstream projects than any other distro.

Satellite Server and their internal build system are the _only_ closed software they have.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Red Hat and IBM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I searched and searched and couldn't find any information on "Satellite Server" -- just cursory mentions. It looks like the replacement for RHN -- but I can't tell. Do you have any links?

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Red Hat and IBM
by Anonymous on Wed 7th Sep 2005 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Red Hat and IBM"
Anonymous Member since:
---

A previous poster also mentioned IBM Editors for Workplace

Reply Score: 0

does this mean
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 02:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

does this mean Sun Star Office will no longer be based on Open Office? and vice versa?

Reply Score: 0

RE: does this mean
by Anonymous on Tue 6th Sep 2005 02:57 UTC in reply to "does this mean"
Anonymous Member since:
---

does this mean Sun Star Office will no longer be based on Open Office? and vice versa?

There is no change between OpenOffice.org and StarOffice; StarOffice is still based on OpenOffice.org.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is great news!
This means independent software vendors can develop integration products around OpenOffice, without being "contaminated" by the GPL. Previously, people were not interested in developing solutions if it meant going out of business or moving the whole code base towards the GPL.
Anybody who's ever been in contact with an office know a couple of things: 1) "it's the workflow, stupid!", meaning office software has to be integrated with other software products - that's what electronic document management is all about, and that's why people stick to MS Office; 2) hacker open source types just don't know what an office workday is like in a big coporation - they care about sockets, kernel and other low-level systems stuff - they don't know how to program spreadsheets! They're never going to do it alone. "Read the source...of the kernel!" hardly the spreadsheet...
This is also great news for office people, who will have more choice now in terms of offerings.
The LGPL and the BSD are the only realistic licenses. The GPL might be good for "system programming" stuff (and even that is debatable), so that hardware vendors don't just incoporate the inovations made by the competition. But if you have a central product that is made of software, than the GPL is just going to hinder ISVs.
The GNU page cites at least one product was licensed under the GPL because a library was using a GPLed library. That library is GNU Readline, and that software was Clisp. No other resounding example to give. Look at KDE: it can't be used in products, because it's under the GPL. Now do you understand why Ubuntu uses GNOME? See, people are beginning to realize that the realistic posture is a mixture of propiretary software and open source. Something the BSD Unix guys knew all along (maybe it has something to do with them being older and having jobs and families :-) )? Ask Miguel De Icaza and RedHat. Pure GNU style is unatainable, unless you want to be fat, hairy, and single by the time you're 50.

Reply Score: 0

Anonymous Member since:
---

This is great news!

It actually doesn't change much.

OpenOffice.org was already licenced under the LGPL.

Also, your comments about the GPL aren't quite accurate. I'll let others address them.

Reply Score: 0