And measuring an open source project by code churn is also meaningless. Results are what matters in the end. Users choosing to download OpenOffice is certainly one form of results. There may be others, of course. But if project A makes X code changes and gets Y downloads, and project B makes 10X code changes and gets Y/10 downloads, then I don't call project B more successful. I call them an inefficient failure.

Correct. So that means that the OpenOffice numbers include only those who actually *wanted* OpenOffice and intentionally downloaded it. It doesn't include those who mere *got* software as part of a larger bundle without asking for it, or even knowing it is there. For all we know some Linux users consider LO to be so much bloatware that came bundled with their operating system.

I think it is fair to consider the quality of a user claimed as part of a metric. We make that distinction all the time. With Microsoft we count registrations over OEM installs, for example. So the number of users who actually downloaded OpenOffice is higher up the commitment scale and is more meaningful than claiming that all Linux users want and use LibreOffice. For all we know they are using the machine purely as a home media server or something else.

You might be right. After all, we all know how the use of the Apache License has entirely ruined Android...

Not.

Uhh... Why wouldn't OpenOffice be called "OpenOffice"? It doesn't seem much of presumption to me, since it is actually OpenOffice.

The fact that LibreOffice has never broken out their Windows download numbers (which would be trivial for them to do) speaks louder than any other argument. If the numbers were favorable we would have already seen their "infographics" on this.

What is the basis for your claim that "the brand was already damaged"? Do you have any evidence for that? And if you did, how could you distinguish damage caused by Oracle from damage caused by the LibreOffice fork?

I read this claim, and I'm sincerely interested in knowing whether this is just FUD, or whether there are any facts behind it.

Likely true. But suppose they have 100% of desktop Linux already? Where then is their growth going to come from? From the charts it looks like Apache OpenOffice downloads are 85% Windows. That gives them a lot more room for growth, IMHO. 50 million downloads shows they are a good-sized fish in a very large pond.

LO was able to get all of their developers to agree to change the license from LGPL to MPL3. If they asked politely maybe they could get a change to Apache?

In other words it is a community/political challenge, not a legal problem.

Linux is what... 3%? 5%? of the desktop market? LibreOffice can have 100% of that market and it means very little.

You are trying to apply the logic of a business to a non-profit. Apache publishes software to the public at no charge. That is their mission. Counter-factuals about raising the price is pointless. It ain't going to happen.

What the article talks about is value. With perfect competition price syncs up with value. Economics 101. But when a non-profit has a mission to provide software for free, then your model breaks.

An analogy: A group of doctors volunteer their time and go into a poor neighborhood and provide free consultations. They might, when reporting the benefit of their work, estimate it based on the fair market value of the services they provide. No one would criticize the value of their charitable efforts by pointing out that the people they treated could not afford the fair market rate for these services. THAT IS THE FRICK'N POINT. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED CHARITY.

The article merely applies the same logic to professionals in the engineering field, where public service can be in the form of open source software.

You are applying the logic of a corporation to a non-profit. This is like applying classical mechanics to massless particles. It doesn't work. The price/demand curve is based on competition. Nonprofits are not competing. They are giving it away for free, regardless of the value. There is no price/demand curve for them.

TFA is talking about the "value" of OpenOffice to the world, the value provided by a nonprofit organization.

If a group of doctors volunteer their time and work in a clinic and treat the poor, pro bono, are they not entitled to claim the value that they provide is based on their normal rate? Same question for lawyers who provide pro bono counsel to those who cannot afford it. Can't they claim the value they produce per their normal hourly rates?

No one would argue that the value of their volunteer efforts is zero because their "customers" would not pay the prevailing rate. That is irrelevant, since no one is asking them to pay that rate. It is a charitable act.

The article merely applies the same logic to professionals in the engineering field, whose public service is in the form of publishing open source software.

You are trying to apply the logic of a business to a non-profit. No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.

An analogy: If a group of doctors volunteer their time and work in a clinic and treat the poor, pro bono, are they not entitled to claim the value that they provide is based on their normal rate? Same question for lawyers who provide pro bono counsel to those who cannot afford it. Can't they claim the value they produce per their normal hourly rates?

I don't anyone would argue that the value is zero because their "customers" would not be able to afford paying that rate. That is irrelevant, since no one is asking them to pay that rate. It is a charitable act. It is a social contribution.

The article merely applies the same logic to professionals in the engineering field, whose public service is in the form of open source software.

The figures in the article are based on downloads of a single product version, 3.4.1, since August 2012. How many times have you downloaded OpenOffice 3.4.1?

1. Microsoft charges full price for Office updates.

2. The article uses the Microsoft price for single-user versions of Office 2013.

I believe that "estimated value" is what TFA calls it. I don't think anyone is making claims that their users would actually pay that price.

An analogy: If a group of doctors volunteer their time and work in a clinic and treat the poor, pro bono, are they not entitled to claim the value that they provide is per their normal rate? Ditto for lawyers who provide pro bono counsel to those who cannot afford it. Can't they claim the value they produce per their normal hourly rates?

I don't anyone would argue that the value is zero because their "customers" would not be able to afford paying that rate.

So why deny the same argument to professionals in the engineering field, whose public service is in the form of open source software?