Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org

l2718 writes to mention that In the wake of their recent deal with Microsoft, Novell has announced a new version of OpenOffice.org which will support Microsoft's planned Office formal, Open XML. From the article: "The translators will be made available as plug-ins to Novell's OpenOffice.org product. Novell will release the code to integrate the Open XML format into its product as open source and submit it for inclusion in the OpenOffice.org project. As a result, end users will be able to more easily share files between Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org, as documents will better maintain consistent formats, formulas and style templates across the two office productivity suites."

Turnabout is fair play

I used OpenOffice and it forked me when it corrupted my boss' spreadsheet right before an important presentation

That's not a fork

Nice FUD, slashdot.

Re:That's not a fork

It is if the main OpenOffice.org project decides not to accept the contributed code.

But if you think it's FUD, blame Groklaw, not Slashdot. They're the ones who came up with the headline.

Re:That's not a fork

It is if the main OpenOffice.org project decides not to accept the contributed code.

if shipping a package with an unaccepted patch is considered "forking", then how the fuck is this news? most unix systems ship with thousands of these "forks".

Re:That's not a fork

Well, if they quietly decided that ODF is unnecessary and made MS "Open" XML the default file format for their builds, that could be cause for concern.

Re:That's not a fork

Well, if they quietly decided that ODF is unnecessary and made MS "Open" XML the default file format for their builds, that could be cause for concern.

Sure. And since Debian has its own "fork" of the Linux kernel (i.e. patches that are not yet in the main source tree), we could say that if they quietly decided Linux is unnecessary and made MS Windows binaries the default kernel for their builds, that would be cause for concern. What is lacking is any evidence that this could ever happen in reality, which is why the story is FUD.

External patches, adding support for a new file format, do not constitute a fork, any more than patching the Linux kernel to support a new device or filesystem does. I'm not sure where you get the idea they're going to make MS's formats the default.

Re:That's not a fork

if shipping a package with an unaccepted patch is considered "forking", then how the fuck is this news?

Novell forked OpenOffice.org [novell.com] years ago. Here [novell.com] is a press release from back in March that says:

SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is the first fully supported enterprise desktop to deliver OpenOffice.org 2.0, the leading open source office suite. OpenOffice includes a powerful spreadsheet program, business presentations tool and word processor. The Novell® edition of OpenOffice.org will support many Visual Basic macros, closing one of the chief compatibility gaps between OpenOffice.org and Microsoft Office. OpenOffice.org 2.0 can save and open documents created in Microsoft Office formats including Excel pivot tables, and it is the only office suite available today that fully supports the OpenDocument file format, the new public standard for document files. Because OpenDocument is a public standard maintained by the open source community, it eliminates vendor lock-in by ensuring information saved in spreadsheets, documents and presentations is freely accessible to any OpenDocument-supporting application.

Miguel [tirania.org] has a blog entry about this too.

Re:That's not a fork

This is not necessarily FUD - Bob Sutor has a point [sutor.com] when he warns against the danger of OpenXML. It is extremely difficult to adopt the specifications (thousands of pages) - and Novell (typical) does it right now in a way that they will have a headstart (even if they contribute code back later). Moreover, they can only hope to successfully implement parts of the OpenXML specs, while providing MS with enough ammo to continue to push their specs over ODF.

Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

I've been a fence-sitter for a while, with respect to the accuracy of Groklaw, due mostly to the fact that I'm too lazy to research and confirm the accuracy of PJ's interpretations of the SCO/Linux legalese (which is almost everything I've ever read on Groklaw). This article, as well as many of the comments PJ made under the article, have lead me to the conclusion that Groklaw is not an objective and/or reliable source of information, and would be better regarded as a political activist site.

Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Yes, sadly this is what Groklaw has become. I think some of PJ's article posts when she came out against the general linux kernel community and its objection to GPLv3 are also shining examples of groklaw bias. Her hypocritical cries "unfair" to a couple responses just killed the shine on groklaw to me.

I guess we at least learned one thing. She isn't a shill for IBM (Stallman on the other hand...)

And a _Novell employee_ complains of bias!?

> There was a comment about PJ spreading FUD, to which she replied that she was guessing because the details of the MS-Novell agreement aren't public so she has to guess. That's all fine and dandy, but then an editorial opinion shouldn't be reported as a fact.

Hey now, you work for Novell, disagree with her take on the Novell/MS deal, and now accuse her of bias because of that? I don't think that's very fair at all.

Anyhow, as someone who has read Groklaw for a few years now (and submitted enough stories from there to Slashdot to prove it), I feel inclined to comment that what she posted on the Microsoft/Novell deal was based on what she does know about the deal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a non-public deal with Microsoft at this time seems, well, underhanded at best. True, Novell did let Eben Moglen inspect the deal, but they more or less had to given that Eben is in a position to sue them for breach of the GPL. The FSF has also said that the GPL v3 will not allow any deals like the Microsoft/Novell deal, so even from that we know that it may well comply with the letter of the GPL v2, but it doesn't comply with the spirit of it because it helps Microsoft keep alive the FUD of the threat of patent litigation Microsoft cultivated so clearly with the SCO dealings. And we have statements, under oath, from the people who bankrolled SCO about Microsoft's involvement.

So how to you get off saying she's writing what she did because she doesn't know the whole deal (and who's fault is that that everyone can't see the secret provisions)? Do you not think it's monumentally stupid to have secret dealings with Microsoft after just how quickly they screw over "partners"? Go read that testimony again about how Microsoft left SCO's bankrollers out to try when things turned bad.

Frankly, from everything we know about the Novell deal, Novell was stupid: stupid to allow Microsoft to use them for FUD of a patent threat, stupid to make a deal that goes against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL, and stupid to think that we'd all just go along with this. And that's why Novell will need a forked version: because if they don't keep these things under GPL v2, they won't be able to keep that agreement with Microsoft.

Don't misunderstand, I can see what's in it for Novell--a fat sack of cash, an opportunity to be the Microsoft-blessed Linux company, and a bit of FUD to both help Microsoft hurt Linux adoption while driving anyone who won't go to Microsoft over to Novell. But I don't see why anyone should go along with it, and I don't see ANY reason to think that the non-public parts of the agreement would change one iota of this analysis.

Then again, you work for Novell. Care to tell me what private parts of the contract I'm not taking into consideration? Just what clause is in there that makes their agreement something other than a sell-out of the Linux community? What part of it wasn't intended to be used by Microsoft for software patent FUD? Even if it doesn't violate the GPL v2, what about it makes it a good idea?

Re:And a _Novell employee_ complains of bias!?

I won't go into the Groklaw pro/anti FUD mill but I will address a few things you said here...

What makes it a good idea? Read what IBM had to say about it. Or Goldman Sachs. It's about interoperability - something Novell built a reputation on starting with the very earliest versions of NetWare. I've worked in IT, and without exception, knowing that I had to deal with Microsoft components in the infrastructure at some point, it was absolutely frustrating beyond belief knowing that I *had* to have them (because people decided MS technology was necessary and refused to look at anything else) and to know that Microsoft was going to make it as difficult as possible for me to use anything in addition to their technology. I fought for *years* to get people to look at better technologies than the stuff MS puts out in order to get the job done in a better way.

Why is it that whenever some talks "interoperability" it is always the Open Standards following people that have to bow to proprietary ones? ODF is an open standard that Microsoft can (and should) implement easily and freely but they choose to close it up. Novell is OK with that according to their agreement. Why should proponents of open standards be forced, yes I said forced, to bow to a company that only wants to lock people into one product be it Novell's or Microsoft's?

I look at the agreement as an opportunity. Is there a possibility of badness? Absolutely, there always is when competitors try to cooperate, especially when one of them is notorious for being a bad partner, and who has burned Novell in the past.

No, the "opportunity" Novell missed here was to take a stand AGAINST software patents. Instead, they chose to perpetuate the fraud known as "method patents" and worse, made a deal with a company known for back stabbing their "partners".

There are 2 old sayings that I think apply here....

1) Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me!

2) Don't piss down my back and tell me it is raining!

... they make the assumption that all of the developers who work for Novell suddenly gave up their OSS scruples and are going to "inject trojan code" into the projects they work on. What message does *that* send about the OSS community - that their principles are for sale?

It is the nature of patents. Code that Novell (or anyone else for that matter) submits to OOo Should be scrutinized to the Nth degree. After all, Novell made a covenant with Microsoft to use their "IP" (whatever the hell that is). I'm not saying Novell's developers would purposely inject bad code, but unless you are willing to get your employer to implement a verifiable "clean-room" implementation for code you are submitting, I for one would err on the side of caution. The cost of defending against patent infringement are too high not to.

B.

Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

>This article, as well as many of the comments PJ made under the article, have lead me to the conclusion that Groklaw is not an objective and/or reliable source of information,

You won't find a news outlet completely free of bias; that just isn't going to happen. The idea of a bias-free blog (and groklaw -first and foremost- is a blog) is absurd on its' face.

As to your second claim; that it's not a reliable source of information; I would like to know why specifically you assert that their information is unreliable and what specifically they get wrong.

Or is it (as I suspect) that you simply disagree with their bias, and have a hard time seperating their bias from the accuracy of their reporting.

Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Bias and accuracy are connected to the extent that the bias influences the conclusion drawn from a given set of data. It's possible for a biased person to present facts accurately, even when those facts are in domains in which that person is biased. But if there is a significant bias that is relevant to the reasoning process, the conclusion may be incorrect.

The thing is, Groklaw has both sides of the coin - a shrill, unabashedly partisan editorial policy; and an obsessive interest in collating, transcribing, and exhaustively dissecting the original sources (it's thanks to a Groklaw regular that the terms of the original BSD settlement became public, for example). Coupled with the track record of PJ's predictions in the case being not only mostly right on, but several moves ahead of the game, and I tend to take her opinions quite seriously, even when I don't agree with her.

Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

Again, the unbiased blog does not exist. The complaint I'm hearing seems to boil down to the fact that that her bias doesn't line up with other posters' own biases than anything else. It doesn't necessarily follow that the accuracy of the stories at groklaw are flawed.

I'm still waiting on the specifics of how the stories on her web log are inaccurate, I'm not in the least bit impressed with meaningless ad hominems ("shill", etc).

I can understand and respect the idea that her bias leads her to present false conclusions as facts; but so far no one has come up and said anything specific beyond "boo hoo she likes gplv3"; what I'm after is "her bias lead her to report C as Y and to report D as X".

Everyone's biased, and yes, bias can lead (but does not necessarily lead) to inaccuracys. So, let's hear the specifics

What specific facts does she gets wrong in her reporting?

Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

I've been a fence-sitter for a while, with respect to the accuracy of Groklaw, due mostly to the fact that I'm too lazy to research and confirm the accuracy of PJ's interpretations of the SCO/Linux legalese (which is almost everything I've ever read on Groklaw).

So let's get this straight: You're too lazy to research the interpretations of a blog of a paralegal who up front admits that she's a paralegal and her site is full of her personal opinions on the law. You do know that she posts all legal documents from the court cases for you to read, right?

This article, as well as many of the comments PJ made under the article, have lead me to the conclusion that Groklaw is not an objective and/or reliable source of information, and would be better regarded as a political activist site.

Although you haven't done any research, you're willing to dismiss her opinions because she might have a bias. That's fine. But you're also going to dismiss all the information she he accumulated like motions, orders, etc, because she has an opinion?

Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot

This article, as well as many of the comments PJ made under the article, have lead me to the conclusion that Groklaw is not an objective and/or reliable source of information, and would be better regarded as a political activist site.

Wow, you manage to state the blindingly obvious and the draw a non sequitur conclusion, all in one sentence.

Yes, PJ has a definite, undisguised bias. She started her blog because she's a fan of Linux and F/LOSS. Yes, her analysis of non-legal issues is often deeply flawed and her opinions drive way too much of her analysis. She is neither businesswoman, nor software developer and doesn't understand that much of either -- more than most who aren't experts in those fields, perhaps, but much less than those who are. I wish she'd be a little more reticent to discuss issues she doesn't understand very well, and she used to be, but fame has gone to her head just a little. I see that as unfortunate but understandable.

Her analysis of the legal minutiae of the cases, however, is nearly always spot-on, and her projections of the outcomes, judges' opinions and general ebb and flow of the cases are excellent. All of which is, of course, completely unsurprising given that she *is* an expert in that area. She's not as expert as a trial attorney of course, but she's expert enough to know what she doesn't know, and frequently gets assistance from lawyers where needed. She also often pulls in assistance from experts in non-legal areas, and knows enough to recognize and use the best.

Finally, if you just want to look at Groklaw for its information content, that's absolutely unimpeachable. She collects all of the available data about the cases and presents it in its raw, unaltered glory (or lack thereof). And she's extremely good at finding relevant snippets of fact in the mass of data floating out there in the world -- which is *precisely* what she is most expert at.

If you don't like PJ's rants, ignore them. But if you discount the data collection, legal analysis and projections, you're a fool. Exactly the same sort of fool that she is when she goes off about things she doesn't understand, actually.

Um

Does this look like Microsoft back to its old "embrace and extend" tricks to anyone else?

Re:Um

It doesn't look it to me. All they did was release plug-in for Open Office. To say that they are forking it is a huge exaggeration. One that apparently fooled you. I see no problem with supporting an additional format, even if it is controlled by MSFT.

Re:Um

To me it looks like Novell develops interoperability with Microsoft's new document format. That's a good thing, since nothing is going to stop the format anyway. Embrace? Novell "embraces" Microsoft's format insofar as they support it, which OpenOffice.org already does with the old format. Extend? That would be insane, since it would leave OOo incompatible.

If Novell can develop good plugins for Microsoft's new format, users could actually switch to OOo instead of upgrading Office. Yes, there's the patent situation, but Microsoft can't do much about interoperability as a convicted monopolist.

Chasing taillights.

The problem with that is it would just take 1 "high priority" "security update" to break the compatibility. And then all those OpenOffice.org installations are "broken" for their customers. Just stick with MS Office, it's less likely to "break".

Microsoft would be happy to maintain control of the de facto "standard" in file formats. That way they can keep everyone chasing after their last update.

Instead, Novell should be looking at making it easier to migrate FROM Microsoft's standards.

Re:Chasing taillights.

No. The same security update would also break Office's compatibility with itself.

And interoperability does just make "it easier to migrate FROM Microsoft's standards".

All forked up

I remember when Novell bought SuSE, people were wondering just how they would inevitably fork up Linux.

Now we know.

Re:All forked up

How exactly did they "fork up" Linux?

- By opening up the Ximian connector for Exchange?
- By refining KDE and making it a pleasant environment>?
- By making SuSE a distro which requires very little (since 10.1 NO) tweaking to get to real work in a heterogeneous environment?
- By making the installation process so easy it's actually enjoyable?
- By submitting many, many valuable patches to the kernel?
- By submitting many, many valuable patches to OpenOffice.org?
- By making ReiserFS journaling actually work?

If this is "forking up" Linux, I sincerely hope that they continue to do so. I've been running SuSE 10.2 off and on and it's shaping up to be a wonderful distribution. The first thing I'm turning off is the Novell-style K-menu, then installing beryl (a great fork of XGL), but aside from those 10.2 is great in what I've tried so far. I still like it more than I like kubuntu (and kubuntu is great).

Novell, keep forking up Linux! :)

Now, what will 10.3 or 11 bring? That's a different question. Up to now Novell has made wonderful contributions to Linux as a whole, gained a lot of exposure for the environment, and as many people believe (true or not) any publicity is good publicity. Their "covenant" with Microsoft is catching the attention of many PHBs, and are more likely to seriously consider choosing something other than Microsoft thanks in part to Novell's actions. From what I see here only reactionists and zealots are attacking Novell over this rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. I'm somewhat doubtful that Microsoft will seriously try to kill Linux, but use their partnership with Novell as a learning exercise to improve the Windows platform, since if they try to break interoperability, "taint" linux, or exercise obvious patents such as the oh-so "innovative" double-click that the DoJ will be all over them, and the EU will be coming down on them very hard. Being a monopoly which was convicted of abusing their monopoly status, Microsoft still has to be very careful in how they tread where agreements such as this are concerned.

Wait and see. If next summer's release proves to be incompatible with the GPL, then it will certainly be time to jump ship.

What?

When did "forking" come to mean "releasing plugins for a product"?

Re:It's hardly a "plugin".

Apparently OpenOffice is going to include import filters [openoffice.org] for the OpenXML format.

If anything Novell is jumping the gun and getting ahead of the competition by including it into their version of OpenOffice before it hits upstream. I wouldn't call such a thing a fork.

Re:It's hardly a "plugin".

It depends. Dynamic links are generally not covered by the GPL, as they are not "really" modifications of the code. They are merely calls to an external object, and totally external calls are not usually considered within the remit of the GPL. (By totally external, I mean that no sane person could say that the object was in any way embedded - even at runtime - into the original code.) If you add such a link to an external object that handles Open XML, then the object handling Open XML need not be GPLed, whereas the code that is identifiably OpenOffice would remain GPL.

This would be modular if (and only if) you could remove said link from the code and have it still work. I think the word WinDriver is appropriate here. Microsoft has, in the past, found ways to shift functionality around to break things when not doing things their way, even though "technically" they are not doing so. The hardware in a WinPrinter or WinModem doesn't change when you move it to Linux, it still functions entirely within spec, it's not its fault that Linux lacks the necessary extra code.

Alternatively, Microsoft could overload one of the Open Office functions in a way that makes Open Office run better (or appear to) with the module than without. Or they could make it flakier to use Open Document. There's a million ways they could coerce users into using their module. And, as with the browser wars, all they need is to make themselves appear needed.

Now, will this happen? I'm not sure. Novell seem suspicious of Microsoft, but the test of a trap is not whether you are suspicious of it, but whether you are caught. (Kerr Avon, "Bounty", Blake's 7) It also seems odd that - at a time the community is suspicious of the whole relationship - Novell would be doing this. It seems unhelpful for customer relationships (or anything else) to add fuel to the fire, no matter how innocent the whole thing is. There have simply been too many cases of innocent victims (users and businesses) in the past for people to simply relax. One should not be too relaxed around a vampire, even if they claim to have become vegetarian. (Vegetarian vampire ducks excluded.)

Is this a fork? I don't think it matters what it is - if it's safe, then it's helpful. If it's unsafe, it'll be lethal. The name on the bottle really doesn't count for much.

Re:It's hardly a "plugin".

The OpenOffice.org architecture does not support dynamically loaded plugins.

That's just completely wrong. OpenOffice absolutely loads it's filters via dlopen, etc. Here is a tutorial on how to build them: A link proving the AC is completely making crap up. [openoffice.org]

Punctuation Abuse?

Perhaps when it acquired quotation marks? In the ever evolving english language, perhaps "forking" means "releasing plugins for a product" and forking means what it bloody well already does mean.

Hmm, that reminds me of the trend of tacking on a question mark to a controversial headline in order to avoid claims of inaccuracy. The headline would be something like, "Slashdot Full of Weirdos?" and even if the article concedes that, no, only half of Slashdot posters are weirdos, so it can hardly be construed as "full" of them, the impression has still been made -- especially on the casual viewer who sees the headline, but doesn't read the article.

Bend Over Novell - this will really hurt

Having the GPL shoved sideways up one's butt has to hurt. Let's ask Novell in a couple of years just how much. With MS's hands on Novell's hips to guide it in, at least it'll be well greased with money.

Embrace, extend, extinguish

I guess Microsoft's "ignore the competitor" strategy has failed, and they're switching to "embrace, extend, extinguish [wikipedia.org]" as Microsoft's claimed to have called their strategy against Java and Netscape. It's interesting that lately Microsoft's been using puppet companies (SCO, Novell) to do their dirty work, rather than adding crappy support for open standards in their own products. I wonder what the legal agreements between Microsoft and Novell/SCO look like?

The first evil spawn of Novell + Microsoft...?

I have been an OpenOffice.org supporter and evangelist for many years [computerworld.com]. It saddens me to see Novell do these things because they at once seem good for their business but place people on the road to vendor lock-in once more. The Microsoft formats are closed and incompatible. The sane approach would be to standardize ODF across the board.

Novell must protect its business as an obligation to its shareholders. In the process, though, they may alienate some of the open-source community supporters to the point where countermeasures may be executed. Forks like this mean that some open-source developers and organizations may ban or license their software in such a way that prevents Novell from sharing the goodies. This in turn results in fragmentation that benefits nobody but Microsoft and its offerings.

This is a master stroke from Microsoft's point of view because this way they may sneak OpenXML into organizations that had otherwise had the sanity to abandon MS-Office and forces them to move in that direction again. Novell gets stuck in the middle, with their leadership getting screwed from both ends (open-source developers and advocates in one corner, and Microsoft in the other) while thinking that they are doing something good. In the end nobody but Microsoft wins this one.

Just say "NO" to OpenXML in an OpenOffice.org fork. Make it an optional package download, and make it a non-default setting, but don't fork the code. In fact, I'd go one step further and make it a requirement for Microsoft Office (and Office Mac) to support ODF if they want OpenXML included in any open-source product. That would make this a two-way street. Are you listening, Novell?

Cheers,

E

Re:The first evil spawn of Novell + Microsoft...?

My initial reaction was the same as yours. But now that I've reflected on the news, and the fact that the "fork" is really just some plug-ins to support OpenXML, I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. What's wrong with having OpenOffice support one more format, especially if it provides better interoperability with the Windows world? It would make it EASIER to use Linux. It would be EASIER to switch to OpenOffice. Where's the evil in that? Would you feel the same way if an open source team of developers worked on the same OpenXML functionality for OpenOffice, similar to how open source people are working on Mono?

I'm actually surprised that I can't find the evil considering Microsoft's been behind a lot of Novell's announcements lately. But this announcement seems more like something Novell's SUSE team has been working on.

groklaw author is not fair at all

This Novell bashing is absolutely not necessary. All Novell is doing is releasing several plugins for Open Office and MS Office. Red Hat could have done this too. And those plugins are all open source and hosted on sourceforge.

Re:groklaw author is not fair at all

Except that in a separate covenant they agreed not to sue anyone using the Office XML spec.

Not to be contrarian

But I thought the whole point of OSS and the like is that you could extend and modify as you like. If you can then make money on it that's fine, but okey-dokey as long as you comply with the license. At its core its Novell doing just that? Sure they're making themselves pariah's amongst the Linux crowd, but isn't that the kind of risk that OSS is supposed to allow?