Linked by Kroc Camen on Wed 1st Jun 2011 19:22 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Oracle and SUN "Today we welcome Oracle's donation of code that has previously been proprietary to the Apache Software Foundation, it is great to see key user features released in a form that can be included into LibreOffice."
Thread beginning with comment 475564
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.

Reply Parent Score: 6

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.


[Citation Needed]

But seriously.. I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that's a notion that people come up with because it makes them angry that there are two "competing" projects.

With proper source control, sharing patches between the projects could be a no-brainer.

Time and again, it's been proven that competition is healthy.

Edited 2011-06-02 04:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.


That's usual in GNU/Linux/FOSS world.

How many widget toolkits are there? How many desktop environments? How many distros? How many pieces of software that do the same thing? People like for sure reinventing the wheel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

mksoft Member since:
2006-02-25

And how is it different from proprietary?

There's more than one proprietary DB implementation, in games more than one FPS, MMORPG, many raster graphics programs, C++ compilers, operating systems, Media players, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 4

libray Member since:
2005-08-27

Add to that there is a lot of dead wood lying around everywhere. the code in OpenOffice will be picked upon for LibreOffice. LibreOffice will be the fork of choice until some other fork comes along and Libre becomes dead wood.

Reply Parent Score: 2

pfgbsd Member since:
2011-03-12

"Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.


That's usual in GNU/Linux/FOSS world.

How many widget toolkits are there? How many desktop environments? How many distros? How many pieces of software that do the same thing? People like for sure reinventing the wheel.
"

That's not a valid comparison: there is only toolkit with the Qt API and toolkit with the GTK+ API. There's OpenMotif and there is/was lesstif but that was not a fork.

There some different office packages already but, while there are some specific variants of OpenOffice, the only real fork is Libreoffice. This will cause a lot of repeated efforts until the projects diverge (which is admittedly not that bad). The *real* downside, of course, is that 100 people were laid off by Oracle after libreoffice forked.

The license may become an interesting difference though. I would see why IBM is more interested in keeping the code under a non-copyleft license, and others may follow.

All in all, I like the forking idea: there was no advantage in giving the code to libreoffice since they already have it with the license they want and they are not asking for code attribution so there was nothing to gain by giving the code to libreoffice.

Reply Parent Score: 1

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

"Two communities developing two almost exactly identical pieces of software instead of just one; makes both communities weaker and makes progress slower.


That's usual in GNU/Linux/FOSS world.

How many widget toolkits are there? How many desktop environments? How many distros? How many pieces of software that do the same thing? People like for sure reinventing the wheel.
"

That's oversimplifying. Forks happen for a reason or they die. If that reason is gone then a fork is pointless. This is different from competing projects that do not share a direct lineage to each other. Often those projects have different goals in the first place, although they generally overlap in some places.

Reply Parent Score: 2