Novell "Forking" OpenOffice.org 370
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."
Embrace, extend, extinguish (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:groklaw author is not fair at all (Score:3, Interesting)
So once you download and install this plug in you make yourself a target for a lawsuit from MS. Furthermore the developers who may contribute to the plugins will also be sued (according to the CEO of MS).
Open source doesn't mean jack shit in this case. MS is laying the groundwork for a series of lawsuits.
Punctuation Abuse? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not to be contrarian (Score:2, Interesting)
Finally, thank goodness... (Score:3, Interesting)
This actually gives OpenOffice a real chance - not only to be competitive but to offer a document format that has some power in its abilities.
Like I argued before with the whole OpenDocument controversy, the file formats and standards in play in the OSS world are just not robust enough to handle the current generation of documents, let alone even try to handle future concepts of what document storage could entail.
Whether OpenOffice takes advantage of it or not, the potential to maintain and use technologies that are standard in the MS world of documents like Ink and extended media content are now possible.
This is actually a win win for both sides of the fence. MS doesn't have to spend development money on a version of Office for the growing OSS OS world, and the OSS OS world can now freely be just as strong of a competitor in the business world. Basically, companies that can afford MS software will continue to do so, and smaller entities that cannot afford the price to buy into MS technology can go Open Source and not have to worry about document compatibility.
With Wordperfect also adding the MS Open format, the market once again has a choice in quality and price of the production product and won't have to worry about losing features based on the solution they choose.
If OpenDocument would have just been more 'open' about robust features that are covered in the MS OpenXML document specifications, we would see it be the standard everyone would be happily using.
However with OpenDocument it was quite unreasonable to expect MS to move to a document format that would stripe away 30% of the features that their products provide. I don't know why this was so hard for the OpenDocument crowd to understand, especially when MS was already in the process of creating an open standard that DID include more advanced document capabilities.
If we are lucky, now we might even see OpenOffice and Wordperfect move to add more feature rich concepts into their products to take advantage of the information they now easily read and store in the MS OpenXML format. Imagine everything from Ink to Sound and Video that are all even text searchable(via recognition), as you can already do with Microsoft Office products.
Re:MS cant win (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the same Microsoft that a few weeks ago, claimed:
After essentially telling people they've started up a Mafia-style IP protection racket, is it any wonder that people might be just a little bit suspicious of anything that looks like Microsoft IP?
More useful think that explains this patch. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It's hardly a "plugin". (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Chasing taillights. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Not really... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a slight to the OSS community at all. Just a statement of reality.
Re:Groklaw: Open Mouth, Insert Foot (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
She claims to be a journalist, yet doesn't follow good journalistic practice, IMNSHO.
Fair disclosure: I do work for Novell.
Re:Why did MS Change Formats? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not only is it immensely more powerful than the old dated
Divide and Conquer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe it's just the pessimist in me, but this sounds like a Divide and Conquer strategy to me.
With the OpenDocument format standard becoming a published ISO standard this week, [slashdot.org] who cares about Microsoft's OpenXML format? Forking OO.o just means that bugs and security problems will have to be fixed by two sources, deployed by two sources, and cause interoperability problems between users of vanilla OO.o and Novell's OO.
All to cause confusion and allow Microsoft to paint themselves in a better light than the FOSS community.
Re:groklaw author is not fair at all (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's not a fork (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The system works.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And a _Novell employee_ complains of bias!? (Score:3, Interesting)
Make no mistake, I've worked for Novell for almost 4 years; I was a customer for about 15. I grew up in IT on NetWare, and absolutely despise (note present tense) what Windows has done to IT. I've been using Linux for about 10 years now. I'm about as anti-Microsoft as you can get, and I've never made a secret about that. I've had occasion to work very closely with Microsoft consulting services on a deployment project and I've seen up-close and personal how truly awful the technology is, especialy on a large scale, and I had no problem telling the consultants that what they proposed the company I worked for at the time do were not merely bad ideas, but were in fact so monumentally untenable given the network infrastructure in place that to even suggest such a design was a very clear demonstration that, smart though they were, they had no understanding as to what it was they were proposing.
When I heard the announcement on November 2, I was just as shocked and surprised as anyone. I've read the transcripts from the MS Antitrust Trial for Eric Schmidt's depositions, and I personally know people who had to deal with MS' bad behaviour in the GINA chain and how they mucked around with MUP.SYS to prevent third party requesters from working efficiently.
You assume a lot in your post here as well; you have to because you don't know what's in the agreement. I don't know what's in the agreement as well, but I do have a little more trust that what they're doing is going to preserve my employment (and perhaps that's biased of me, I admit that).
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.
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.
But what really burns me about PJ's posts is that 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?
Talk about giving Microsoft fodder to spread more FUD about OSS...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions... (Score:3, Interesting)
I fear, unfortunately, that you'll end up like so many other Microsoft "partners"
> But what really burns me about PJ's posts is that they make the assumption that all of the developers who work for Novell suddenly gave up their OSS scruples
I think that was just one example of how this could spell trouble in theory--legal types need to think about theoretical problems before they become actual ones. Who'd have dreamed up SCO vs. IBM before the fact? I sincerely doubt any of the developers at Novell would do anything like that example, though.
I'll give you credit that it's more likely the management than you, but understand this: that agreement may very well spell trouble for the rest of us. IBM made a great patent pledge to protect Linux. Their Nazgul can easily fend off lesser patent trolls, and real companies have too much to lose. But in SCO vs. IBM, Novell's ability to waive certain of SCO's purported contractual rights was still a big help. I don't blame Novell from not wanting to get squished in a clash between titans (IBM & Microsoft), but I'm worried here because this pretty much signals that they won't be there to stick up for Linux. They probably can't be, with that agreement in place.
Anyhow, give PJ some credit--she has a good idea about what will cause legal trouble in the future, and this agreement is pretty high on the list right now, while SCO is basically dead although we still have to listen to its last tormented screams before its obliterated.
I don't really think you're out to harm Linux. I'm not even convinced your management is. But there are plenty of ways to do that unintentionally, and it's looking like Novell won't go along with GPL v3, they're willing to let Microsoft use them, and I wouldn't doubt that Microsoft was banking on a negative reaction between Novell and the OSS community. Honestly, "trojan code" deliberate or otherwise wouldn't matter any more after this, remember? Novell needs this fork under GPL v2 before GPL v3 arrives and divides us some more... But if there isn't a GPL v3 that's widely used, I'd bet we'll see even more legal trouble in the future.
How is a plugin a fork? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's not a fork (Score:1, Interesting)
Say what? Out of Order Processing? Object Oriented Programming? Both are silly in this context. It's a message-passing (collection of) microkernel(s), and that's it.
And how does it use the FSF philosophy? Maybe it performs message-passing against capitalism or proprietary software or the patent system? And if it uses the GNU philosophy, what exactly is that philosophy? "Lots of simple good tools like in an Unix, but definitely not an Unix!"?
You are being a bit vague there, buddy.
However, it would be (genuinely!) interesting if you could clearly state how The Hurd is ethically/morally better than Linux.
Re:It's hardly a "plugin". (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of readline, that would be an upstream link and I could see potential licensing issues there, as you are essentially including GPL code in a non-GPL object. That would definitely be on the Forbidden List. Downstream is slightly different - you can run GCC under non-GPL'ed OS', even though there must be links GCC must use that are not GPL'ed. (It is possible, I suppose, that Cygwin re-implements the BIOS, has its own screen manager so that X will work, etc, but me thinks not.
In this case, a better example might be a use of dlopen(). If person A wrote some code that installed a file of a specific name and called specific functions within that file, with ALL of that interface under the GPL, then if some such file happened to not be GPL, I don't see that you would be retrospectively violating the license. The program has not been changed - on disk or in memory. Everything is exactly as it was, with the sole difference that the pointers now point to something, where that something is wholly external and wholly black-box.
(If you were to ask me if I like closed source - whether as a module or in any other form - I'd say no. Corporations HAVE to compile to the lowest common denominator, which means I can always optimize better than them. Corporations CANNOT include capabilities as fast as the total IT market is capable of creating them, which means that I am better equipt to ensure I have the feature set I need. Corporations also have to make assumptions that may - or may not - apply either the typical user or the stereotypically-dumb user, so I am in an infinitely superior position to have code that functions for me, operates the way I think, follows my mental picture of the system in question. Closed-source, by its very nature, has to be a compromise hack. It can't be anything else. Open source often is a compromise hack, but that is entirely by choice, as stupid as I think such a choice is.)