Talk:Apache OpenOffice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I left a pile of dangling references but have to dash out for the day all of a sudden! Cleanup welcomed :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


The list of included fonts is probably not inaccurate, but two of the refs are about OOo from 2008 and 2010. Anything about AOO specifically? - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

... and IBM Symphony[edit]

They went on at length about all the merges from the Symphony code drop, and IBM has declared AOO the successor to Symphony, so I've included AOO 4.0 as being descended from that. 3.4 to 4.0 changes, really quite a lot are from Symphony - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

moved to, where the original separation was discussed

Move request[edit]

FYI, I've opened a move request at OpenOffice to move it back to OpenOffice (disambiguation) and redirect OpenOffice to Apache OpenOffice. --Tóraí (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It also contributed Oracle-owned ... at the suggestion of IBM ... as IBM did not want[edit]

David, the revert you made here relates to an identical sentence that you've been tackled on over at

It's a three clause sentence that combines statements appearing in separate sources into one larger statement that is not supported by any source by itself. The individual parts are fine - but as a whole it is the very definition of the synthesis (i.e. original research).

Can you please break it up into individually supported parts? Otherwise, it has to be removed form both articles as original research. Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What part is synthesis? That's what happened, and that's the cites for it. In particular, the IBM document about IBM's preference for permissive licencing states directly that it was IBM that had "chosen to engage with the Apache Software Foundation" - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
What single source supports the whole sentence in its entirety ("It also contributed Oracle-owned ... at the suggestion of IBM ... as IBM did not want ...")? If none do then it's original research. --Tóraí (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've marked the specific parts of the sentence that aren't supported by the references. If you can show where the reference do support these parts then good and well. --Tóraí (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In [1], per [2] I've changed "at the suggestion of" to "by the preference of" ("It now seems that IBM, which has invested millions in OpenOffice over the years, and uses it as the basis for its Symphony office suite, preferred the option of OpenOffice being spun off to The Apache Foundation.") and the second, the IBM essay cited [3] states their preference for permissive licensing and several paragraphs about their objections to copyleft in this particular case, and that this as why they engaged with Apache. You're arguing with the actual text of the sources and of an IBM-sourced statement of their actual motives - David Gerard (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't work, David. I don't see where either of those sources say why "[Oracle] also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for re-licensing under the Apache License". Let alone whether IBM had any influence on that decision.
I've split the sentence up. This means each part can either stand or fall by its own merits. Doing so exposes how the second and third clause of the original sentence are unsupported by the references given. --Tóraí (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I've rephrases these sentences to match closer to the sources. I think it now says both what you want it to say and matches the sources. --Tóraí (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Your present wording's okay by me. I recall emails on the Apache lists clarifying precisely what Oracle had and hadn't done regarding the copyright (it was a very confusing thing they did), I may or may not go dredging through again - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for section "Supported file formats"[edit]

Could someone who has the time and access to the data please add a "Supported file formats" section to this article? This is the only article about a fork of the original that doesn't have that section. --Rob Kelk 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I wanted this a while ago - but it says "There is no definitive list of what formats the program supports other than the program's behaviour." because that's what the project said when I went so far as to ask on dev@ if there was a list: "The definitive list is what shows up in the File/Open and File/Save As... dialogs. Any other source of information lags." So we could try to put one together, but it'd arguably be WP:OR - the project hasn't documented it since the code purge (which removed several). Also, many of the older and more obscure formats may not in fact work - e.g. they discovered UOF doesn't actually work in LibreOffice after the relevant code hadn't been touched in several years, and that'd be the same code in AOO - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Open letter to AOO[edit]

I note it was added then removed. This is probably correct (an LWN mention, rather than article, is pretty skimpy) ... but has there been further coverage of this, in the manner of the extensive coverage of the project's dormancy? - David Gerard (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Some coverage so far: [4][5][6] though iProgrammer is extremely minor and the ZDnet one is explicitly marked "blog" - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
And more: [7][8][9][10][11] This is notable. Will try to write something up - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Added - David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
notes, more: [12][13][14] - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think AOO is dormant? It's not. There's a team which is working hard to make the next release (4.0.2) and they're working on version 5, too. --Maxl (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't seem tn respond to what you're responding to - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@David Gerard: I think you meant "correspond", but I understood.
@Maxl: The developers discussion list doesn't seem to show that they are working on a new version. These repository links show very little activity: [15] [16] The Fisheye link in particular shows all the work is on the master. However, this sort of information requires interpretation and I don't like it as a source. Is there a roadmap showing when the next release is scheduled to be released? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The lack of activity is cited to (1) the project's official report to the ASF - they say themselves how inactive they are (2) third-party coverage of the observable lack of development - David Gerard (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Walter Görlitz: You don't seem to have read the discussion carefully. They are currently working to release version 4.1.2. And secondly, in the citations given for the claim that Apache OpenOffice is dormant, this very thing is NOT cited. --Maxl (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Lots of chatter on the mailing list and a hope to one day produce a release is not the same as "active" in the sense that a reader might anticipate. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The point is that "reading the discussion" requires interpretation. It's not active. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

"Dormant" status[edit]

The development status in the infobox is listed as "Dormant". This is not supported by any of the citations given. The first response to my adding the "{Failed verification}" tag was to delete it; the second response was to add two more citations that still don't support a status of "dormant".

User:ClareTheSharer keeps saying I should suggest another word. How about "Active"? The only reason I haven't changed the status to "Active" is that I'm waiting to see if someone actually has a good reason to call it "Dormant". So far none of the references given justify it. Morfusmax (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying it because there is discussion of this topic in the section above. The word "active" that you propose does not reflect the lack of public releases for nearly a year, hence does not seem appropriate. All the citations given reflect this lack of public releases, including one which involves an un-fixed CVE. Perhaps it would be smart to leave as-is until there is a release to demonstrate development activity? ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
The project laments its inactivity and has been distributing software with a known vulnerability for five months now. There's a word for projects in that condition. It's cited to both first and third party sources; I don't think the standard of proof needed here is "primary source must use this particular word". "active" is clearly wrong per extensive sourcing already in the article - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the problem is that you are applying your own personal, subjective definition of what "active" means, and trying to treat it as though it's something objective. You however, have no special standing to get to decide what active means. 5 months without a release, or 5 years without a release, if the projects developers are working on the project and they say they are active, then it is active. In this case, no 3rd party source can truly be considered more a better source, since nobody has more information about the on-going state of things, than the people actually doing the work. Sprhodes (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's worth noting that there are several of us who have discussed the observation that the use of "Active" as a status is not appropriate for a project that's proved unable to find the developer resources to make a security release since late April. Pinning this on a single editor does not seem right (and the sophomoric comments and threats about that editor on the Apache mailing list are even less so). It's also worth noting that the assertion you are making -- that primary sources trump secondary sources -- is generally the reverse of the policy on Wikipedia. Finally I have to note that finding several people disagree with you is not proof of either a conspiracy or of a conflict of interest. ClareTheSharer (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
And by what objective standard are you stating that "fixing security holes in five months" is a required standard for a project to be considered "active"? I don't have the citations in front of me, but I'm aware of software products that have shipped with known bugs remaining unfixed for years. If a number of people agree with David, that only means that a number of people are trying to apply their subjective opinion on something in a way that has no basis to support it. And that should not be grounds for stating something as fact on Wikipedia. Sprhodes (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
That was just a passing comment on my part in a sentence you appear to have otherwise ignored indicating that people other than David Gerard have voiced views. I don't personally think that piece of original research is any more reliable in determining the project status than the primary source of the project web site, and believe we need to summarise multiple secondary sources if we are to make a reliable statement about the project status in a way that satisfies WP:NOR. I think that's what a number of people have been attempting to do in good faith, and it's why I believe your understanding of WP:NOR expressed below is seriously incorrect.
All the same, I would be very interested to know about an end-user open source project with a substantial user base that has announced but not released a fix to a CVE (not just a bug) for an extended period. Do share as I'd love to add that to my research notes - thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
As for "It's also worth noting that the assertion you are making -- that primary sources trump secondary sources -- is generally the reverse of the policy on Wikipedia." -- I'm obviously aware that in general secondary sources are preferred. But I'm staying that in this specific case due to the nature of the kind of fact we're talking about, a primary source is clearly preferred, because no one else could possibly have more information, or more up to date information, than the people updating the primary sources. Take, for example, the one so called "reliable source" that was cited as grounds for calling the project dormant, which is from September 2014. That's a year out of date and completely irrelevant, and absolutely should not be considered to trump a much more recent primary source. Sprhodes (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Opinions per se are not worth noting, unless it's published and considered a reliable source. fgnievinski (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"Dormant" would mean the project is not being developed at all, and that the developers have no intent to do any additional work. Nothing cited to date supports that position in any way. OTOH, there are sources (albeit primary sources) which make it quite clear that development continues. The only appropriate word to put for status then is "Active". If people are going to refuse to accept that, then the entire "development status" blurb should be removed completely. Sprhodes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
A project that can't fix a truck-sized security hole in five months is not "active", even if they write a wiki page. Words in English mean things - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, words mean things, but you don't get to decide what they mean. There is no objective standard which says that either releases or the status of security holes defines whether or not a project is "active".
I've changed it to "moribund", which is supported by the refs I've just added - third-party RSes describing it as "dying", "all but inactive", "collapsed" and noting in detail how the proejct admits they literally can't maintain their own infrastructure - David Gerard (talk) 10:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Which organisation are you affiliated to that you so desperately want to damage OpenOffice that you resort to changing the status to "moribund" against better knowledge? --Maxl (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a curious statement. I have cited sources, and you haven't. So therefore, anyone disagreeing with you must have a conflict of interest? Surely that's not the ideal way to be a Wikipedian - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Are third-party opinion sources sufficient to determine the status of a project? If there is significant negative public opinion about the project that's certainly appropriate for a section of the article, but the actual status of the project is probably best determined by in-project sources, unless there flat-out aren't any. "Dormant" is belied by one of the citations which states new volunteers are still showing up; "Moribund" is subjective and therefore not a factual status. Is there a formal Wikipedia definition of "Development Status"? Morfusmax (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The formal Wikipedia policy on sourcing is WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, any LibreOffice supporter, don't bother engaging in any silly edit wars regarding the status of Apache OpenOffice. That does nothing for "our cause" except makes us seem childish. --Tor Lillqvist, who is too lazy to retrieve his Wikipedia password — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:4FE:BC00:5DA8:7121:3D23:4B6 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Curiously enough, I'd largely say the same thing for AOO supporters. I don't want to be involved in a Wikipedia edit / revert war any more than anybody else. But I want Wikipedia to be accurate, and I know that it's not accurate (in any objective sense) to call the AOO status "dormant". At this point, I'm almost more in favor of just removing "development status" from that infobox altogether until this clearly shakes out one way or another. Assuming AOO do make a 4.1.2 release relatively soon, that should settle the issue (until next time anyway). Sprhodes (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm seeing strong opinions on both sides, which makes me cite WP:NPOV. It seems clear that the "Development Status" is not being evaluated neutrally. And since there can only be one term in there, that means neither "Active" nor "Moribund" can be used. I'm inclined to suggest the "Development Status" be left out altogether if a neutral, unbiased and accurate term can't be decided on. Morfusmax (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Per the section below, the "strong opinion" appears to be people who've come in from a project mailing-list call-to-action attack. I urge you to read the Wikipedia sourcing policies - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There seem to be equally strong opinions coming from people who insist on the status being other than "Active". My involvement in all this started when I examined the cited sources for "Dormant" and found them unsupportive; my "{Failed verification}" tags have been removed twice so far, yet the citations remain. They do not support a status of "Dormant", and certainly do not support a status of "Moribund" (which online dictionaries translate as "Dying"). To extract those statuses from the cited sources is at best Failed Verification and at worst Original Research.
Since you can't stick two points of view into the "Development Status" field, and since there appear to be two strong ones, I still suggest there be neither. Morfusmax (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
That's only plausible if you ignore the Wikipedia sourcing rules. There is no actual guideline on that field, so it would default to the Wikipedia sourcing rules which such guidelines are special cases of: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR WP:NPOV. We have third-party reliable sources that are verifiable. Deciding you're going to make up a new use for the field is original research. So we look to the third-party sources to estimate a neutral state. They don't describe it as active - the project itself does, but the third-party sources do not. "Moribund" is a description of what those sources (which are already cited in the article) say, so perhaps another word is suitable - how about "dying", that's a word they actually use? I think that matches what the sources (already cited in the article) say, because those sources are pretty clear that "active" is actually a false statement. I see no reason to leave it blank in the face of the sources (already cited in the article) - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's take these sources one by one...

  • The first citation is actually two sources: -- announcement of retirement of the release manager at the time -- statement that the release manager position is still not filled.

I don't see anything in either of these that says Apache OpenOffice is anything but active. In fact, one of them says, "We are still in the planning phase for our next release, tentatively 4.1.2." My read of this is: "We want to make progress but we have an obstacle to overcome." Active concern about said obstacle suggests active status.

@Walter Görlitz: could you please comment on this specific source? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Primary source that requires interpretation and should not be used. The fact that the first is a year old and there has been no release since tells me that product is stagnant. The second, half a year old, indicates that they're "planning" and no indication that they're actively developing.
  • Next...

In this I see "struggling", I see "reduced" and I see "stalled", but I see all of those in the context of activity. Struggling, stalled, reduced activity is nevertheless activity. "Dormant" does not apply here. "Moribund"/"Dying" suggests a trend, which would require the minutes to say that AOO was bad off before the writing and worse off as of the writing. This is not stated, therefore "Moribund" is not supported.

@Walter Görlitz: could you please comment on this specific source? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Primary source that requires interpretation and should not be used. A nine-month-old meeting minutes. At that time "The latest [community] committer addition is from May 2014 (tal)." Unable to use new volunteers because they are "witnessing a reduced level of activity (in terms of both contributed lines of code and e-mails to the dev list) from more experienced developers."
  • Next...

This article is questionable in its accuracy. It quotes an email post, which quotes a proposed draft for an AOO status report, which starts with the sentence, "Please be aware, this text is a working copy and not to be quoted." It then goes on to quote a one-line email asking if certain content should be included in the report. I'd be more comfortable with the reliability of this article if it quoted the actual published report.

@Walter Görlitz: could you please comment on this specific source? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Primary source that requires interpretation and should not be used. Primary discussion about a lack of fix to CVE-2015-1774, which was fixed in LibreOffice 4.3.7 on April 25, 2015. "Unfortunately, projects that fall below a critical mass of developers rarely send out an advisory to that effect."
  • Next two...

Byfield, Bruce (21 April 2015). "Is OpenOffice Dying?". Datamation. Byfield, Bruce (30 September 2014). "LibreOffice, OpenOffice, and rumors of unification". Linux Magazine.

Two articles that aren't available online. We can't immediately see what the articles actually say, and one- and three-word quotes from the articles are all that's included in the page. The reference on the page that cites these sources refers to "industry analysts", except that the two sources referenced are from the same person in different magazines. Having only the titles to go on at the moment, I see a question mark in one and the word "rumors" in the other. This does not seem like definitive proof of "Dormant" or "Moribund".

{Failed verification}

Morfusmax (talk) 23:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Being available online isn't a criteria for verification. If Linux Magazine, which has been excluded as a RS in the past, supports the statement, WP:V has been met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
They are here: [17] [18]; @Morfusmax: could you please evaluate these? fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I also found the Datamation one ( Both of these articles do represent the viewpoint that Apache OpenOffice is on the decline, and should probably be quoted more extensively than with single words in the AOO page. However, it should be noted that these are both blog posts and opinion pieces, which gets into Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view: "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Representing them as opinions is fine, but the Development Status is being presented as a fact, at the same level as the project name, the most recent release date and other verifiable facts. The infobox isn't the place for opinions. If the Development Status can't be determined more accurately than one opinion versus another, it shouldn't be there at all. (BTW, Mr. Byfield states in a later article -- -- that AOO is possibly getting better. He does, however, note the "moribund" status, but doesn't note that that status cites his own article.) Morfusmax (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care for the anger from the OpenOffice fans who have started to post here nor am I fond of the response of seasoned Wikipedians. Don't bite the newbies. Yes, OpenOffice is falling behind LibreOffice, but I don't know that it's dead just because it hasn't released for a long time (or that their last few releases have been lacking features and filled with bugs) how and when they release is up to them. How that is reflected in Wikipedia should be done adhering to WP:NPOV. I'm in favour of removing the status parameter until this is resolved. I'm also in favour of leaving it as Active. I'm not favour of poor sources, such as those from developer forums, source code repositories, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Distrusting the project's self-declared development status is giving undue weight to less significant external news speculation, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. fgnievinski (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a mere assertion from inside the project. On Wikipedia, third-party RSes generally trump publicity materials, though the latter may warrant mention - but never merely accepting uncritically, as you are advocating - David Gerard (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
While you claim others not to have a neutral point on this you don't either. You appear to have posted hate tweets regarding AOO. So far as to your neutrality. And your "neutrality" obviously goes so far as to ridicule people who do not share your opinion.--Maxl (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@Maxl: Would you please check No personal attacks. fgnievinski (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
At least some of these "3rd party RSes" you speak of are clearly opinion pieces, not factual reporting. And at least one of them is pretty old and not really relevant anymore, IIRC. Basically, on something like "development status" a primary source from within the project actually is the best source, since no one else is ever going to have the same level of knowledge about the inner workings of the project. Sprhodes (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Fgnievski: It's not an attack, it's just the truth. --Maxl (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm dropping out of this discussion[edit]

For what it's worth, I have better things to spend my time on. My last edit was to simply remove the "status" field from the Infobox completely, which I believe is actually the best approach to take at the moment. But if somebody really must add it back, have at it, I won't contest it. My feeling is that once the AOO 4.1.2 release ships, this whole issue goes away, at least for a while. I'll stay out of this until and when that happens. Sprhodes (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Connected Contributor[edit]

I notice from reading the project's mailing list that edits here are being discussed there by project members, sometimes in terms that assume bad faith by other editors. Do we need to add a Connected Contributor section to this page? ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you can find an actual conflict of interest concerning a contributor. Else this sounds like the standard "permissible" personal attack of claiming someone has a CoI when the actual problem is they disagree with them. WP:RSes help - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Where are you seeing this? I don't see anything about it on dev@ - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
See for the root of the thread. ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, an editor here is an AOO list participant who is assuming those disagreeing with him must be conflicted, rather than e.g. having extensive cites - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any 'assuming' that others have a conflict of interest, although I may have missed that post. But I did allude to the 'possibility' that some people with vested interests in harming AOO may be (or become) involved in this. And I have no qualms whatsoever about saying that. There's been a very public campaign to smear and discredit AOO over the past few weeks, and given the timing of this little "skirmish", it's hard not to suspect a connection. Sprhodes (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested in your allegation of an organised campaign as i had not considered that might be a possibility. Do you have any evidence of that please? Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, I can't prove that it's an "organized campaign" with any actual collaboration between the players, but suspiciously in the last month or two, a number of blog posts have appeared with some variation of the message "AOO sucks, ditch it for LibreOffice". For example: and
And a number of other outlets picked up Schaller's piece and wrote stories based off of it, creating the an overall vibe of very negative sentiment towards AOO in the media. I'll allow that "campaign" might have been the wrong word to use, as the timing of all of this might be coincidental. But I remain very suspicious. Sprhodes (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. To my outsider eyes it just looked like some guy who finally snapped and found his blog post resonated with quite a few people, although I could imagine someone invested in the project might feel hurt by that happening and ascribe it to malice. All the same, when folk like Matthew Garrett are complaining about a project it is surprising to see the comments treated as bias rather than as a sign of a problem that needs fixing in the project. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
This claim of a "coordinated effort" is surmise on your part, which I will go so far as to call projection - the actual coordinated effort is on the part of AOO, for example the call to action here, in which the project tries to coordinate an attack on a Wikipedia editor they feel isn't helping their marketing. You are assuming others might be doing what you are in fact doing.
That isn't the same "call to action" being referred to earlier, and it's also quite irrelevant to this discussion. If you as a Wikipedia editor are acting in bad faith, it's quite reasonable for people to seek out evidence of that and to make it public. Quit whining. Sprhodes (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I emailed a reply to that email, suggesting reviewing WP:COI for what it actually says. Note that having opinions different to yours does not constitute a COI, but coordinating a marketing attack on a Wikipedia article almost certainly does. I have many opinions on AOO, but that's why I edit with WP:RSes firmly to hand and discuss stuff on talk pages and so forth.
You haven't posted a single WP:RS yet which is up to date and which supports referring to AOO as having a status of "Dormant". Sprhodes (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting response Sphodes. I believe David Gerard has given RSes that show it's dormant. The fact that it hasn't had a full release in a year. That implies dormant. But this says it's "effectively dormant". I'm sure I can find dozens more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me moving this, I think it belongs here. Undo if I'm wrong :-)
I also wanted to say (since the Status section got deleted yet again, this time by you) that it is just as much an expression of a POV to delete said section after it has stood for so long. After all the malarkey that's happened this week I believe we should reinstate it with "Dormant", which is directly supported by the secondary source you supplied & I added (just before you deleted it!) and which had stood unchallenged by editors for a reasonable time before the call-to-action over at the project. WP:BOLD as I am, I'm not going to do it just yet though as I think everyone should leave space for comment before acting on this section of the article. ClareTheSharer (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind the move, but it was in the correct order. As for the removal, I stated that I thought it was best several days ago. At least one other editor agrees. The next possible step would be to get the page completely locked and have an admin decide whether the parameter should be included or not, at least until we get consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You have to also keep in mind that your project appears to have time to post excuses to blogs and embark on call-to-action marketing attacks on a Wikipedia article, but not in the past five months to remove one file from the AOO installer and stop installing security holes on your users' PCs. This appears to be the impetus for much of the above (certainly for me telling people I know to stop using AOO if they want a secure computer), and Matthew Garrett goes into quite some detail on the rationale for his thinking. Note that he'd probably constitute an RS himself on computer security matters - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
That's all quite fascinating, but again, it's irrelevant to the bigger question of "what's the status of AOO".
It appears the call-to-action editors are also hitting and are currently at three reverts - David Gerard (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there has been no "call to action". There was a thread pointing out an inaccuracy on a Wikipedia page, and some people have chimed in to discuss various attempts to address that. Perfectly reasonable, no conspiracy here. Sprhodes (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to work out a list of connected contributors and add a Connected Contributor section later. If the editors in question prefer to show good faith they could add the section themselves and self-declare before then. ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
You can add me to such a list if you'd like. My affiliation with the AOO project is tentative at best, but I have nothing to hide. Any edit I've made here has been factually correct and supported by valid citations, unlike edits made by some of the other participants in this conversation. Sprhodes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! That's very helpful. Would you like to add the CC template? I'm happy for anyone to do it. ClareTheSharer (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never done that before, but I can take a stab at it if I get some time. But if somebody else wants to do it, that's fine with me. Sprhodes (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, added, and added an explicit declaration of my connection to this topic. Like I said, I don't have anything to hide. Others, feel free to add yourselves to the list.Sprhodes (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Super start, well done. ClareTheSharer (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Folks should double check WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY before posting personal information here. fgnievinski (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, although I'm not clear how it's relevant to this section. My read of the Connected Contributor template is that it does not include the posting of personal information and there's no request (or place) for chilling behavior. My apologies if I have missed another comment to which you are referring, this talk page has become hard to follow with all the sudden interest is is receiving! ClareTheSharer (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Connected Contributor Declarations[edit]

  • Sprhodes - Phillip Rhodes - I was formerly (and maybe still am, I'm honestly not sure) a committer on the Apache OpenOffice project. However, my participation in the project has been very limited from the beginning. I do run a software company that has expressed interest in the possibility of shipping a product based on the AOO code, although no such offering is currently available, nor is it imminent. It's really just a speculative idea we have batted around. Sprhodes (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Serious Security Vulnerability"[edit]

ClareTheSharer has been reverting attempts to clarify this sentence in the opening paragraph: "The current download contains a serious security vulnerability in the import filter from a Hangul-language Korean word processor, known since April 2015." There are several problems with this. The first has been corrected, as the line (as added by Clare) was "The current download contains a serious security vulnerability, known since April 2015." -- this is egregiously misleading, as the vulnerability affects only imports from that obscure importer. However, it would seem that this very minor bug doesn't rise to the level of something deserving mention in the opening paragraph, and further, it is sourced to a blog which may not be a Wikipedia "reliable source". Combined with edit-warring over whether the project is "dormant", this seems to indicate a certain negative Point of View inconsistent with unbiased editing here. May Knott (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit comes across as downplaying the vulnerability - it's in the HWP filter, but an exploit can be in any file extension AOO can open. I've added more detail in the body text, where it belongs - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I must note also that AOO proponents' perennial accusations of bad faith editing when disagreed with, and consistent failure to bring verifiable third-party reliable sources to back their claims, are tiresome at best. has been a highly respected Linux and open source news source for 17 years now - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC) may have been around for a long time, but can you kindly explain how it does not fall into the category of WP:NEWSBLOG? May Knott (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Erm, I don't have to, because it isn't. The burden of proof would be upon you to demonstrate that it is, given there's a stupendous number of articles that use LWN as a reference source already (which, as a very infrequent Wikipedia editor, you may not have been aware of) - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
LWN uses paid writers and also commissions articles, so is clearly not in that category. Its (paid) editors also post news items. Their standards are markedly higher than many better-known online publications about which there is no question of utility as a second-party source. Even their reader comments sections are generally better reading than elsewhere. You can read their guidelines here: ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apache OpenOffice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not being able to build AOO; development status[edit]

I understand from dev@ discussion that one of the reasons the securlty hole was open for nine months was that nobody amongst the remaining few volunteers knew how to build AOO for all three platforms. Was this ever covered by a third party? - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

btw, the "moribund" is development status - which gets a para in the intro, and a much longer para in the "Development" section, all cited to numerous third-party RSes. The project claims otherwise, but then this talk page features AOO developers loudly proclaiming the project's life and vitality when these were literally the same people who didn't know how to compile their own software to fix a months-open security hole. This sort of thing is why we look to third party sources over primary sources. Their publicity status is much more active, but I'll note that after the burst of commits for 4.1.3, there hasn't been a commit to trunk since early November - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)