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

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Macintosh task force (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Former featured article candidate is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 13, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
October 9, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
November 10, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

    Split the article - a roadmap[edit]

    OK, after Apache finally released AOO 4.0 we should think of how we split the articles.

    Some organizational stuff (proposal):

    Some topical stuff (proposal):

    • which kind of features and critics should be should be overtaken?
    • how to include the forks? Actually there are no new forks since Apache overtook OpenOffice (except the short lived White Label Office)
    • how to rewrite the history? which parts are needed? what should be excluded as it is simply too old?
    • release history? I mean actually we can combine the release history in two sentence and mention only 3 or 4 major releases...
    • any other ideas? (esp. including the thread above)

    text What is your opinion? What did I miss to ask?

    mabdul 17:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

    Looking at it, I think the present text would actually allow an AOO article to split out pretty cleanly - David Gerard (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    That sounds perfect. I'm going to give this a go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Just had a hack at it. Probably left dangling references. Some stuff I added is IMO well known but still needs solid citing (e.g. both AOO and LO claim to be the legitimate successor). I've historicised it down to about "==Fonts==" - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    Moving OpenOffice (disambiguation) to OpenOffice seems a very good idea. The current redirect is too confusing Bhny (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I've done it the other way, i.e. OpenOffice is now pointed at the dab page. Cleaning up in AWB as we speak.
    I'm a little annoyed that a two-year-old version of the article has been dropped in (future tenses and all), given our considerable effort to clean up the old text over the past year. I'll probably put back quite a bit of the text, carefully-researched references etc - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I just tried to clean up the 2yo text, and it's hopeless. It's badly-written, embarrasingly ungrammatical, very badly referenced, and actually wrong in way too many places (hence the hard-arsed referencing). This has been a contentious article, so careful wording and strong citations are really, really important here. I've reverted to the last text; if you want to restructure the article (e.g. re-merging the corporate history with the development history), please start with the well-referenced text - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    It wasn't actually a wholesale revert to the old revision: I started with a recent revision and selectively imported old bits. But I'll see if I can have another go. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    Hello all. Please don't take it the wrong way but I have to strongly disagree that OpenOffice is a redirect to the disambiguation page. OpenOffice with no space and without the .org is the Apache project, period. I also disagree that David seems to blindly change all OpenOffice links into At least in the case of [1] linking to an article about a now defunct project is at very least weird. What is also totally weird – and as far as I'm aware unique to software articles – that a mere change in management results in a new article. One article per major version is common but splitting off the section about OO 3.4 into another article than all other 3.x versions hardly follows WP conventions. Over the years plenty of existing software projects joined Apache. Did any of them ever get a new WP article just because they became Apache projects? I never encountered that. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against splitting convoluted articles up but in case of software doing it along the lines of major releases seems to be WP standard. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    "OpenOffice with no space and without the .org is the Apache project, period." You appear there to be claiming that ASF has successfully confused a trademark owned by someone else. You're making an accusation of trademark violation against ASF that would require a high level of citation. (Rob Weir's blog post that seems to claim "OpenOffice" means "AOO", and his blog comments since then, probably isn't sufficient.)
    Also, you are asserting AOO = OOo - but this is itself a matter of great contention, a lot of "he said, she said" and hence something neither side can just have accepted on an assertion. Hence noting in the intro that both AOO and LO claim to be the legitimate successor project (and yes, I need to find the cites for the claims ASAP, but they both do it a lot) - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Oracle donated all of, including web domain, trademarks, and most importantly source code copyright to Apache. Claiming that these facts are “a matter of great contention” is a non-neutral POV. These are facts – easily provable by simply visiting and scrolling to the bottom of the page with legal notices – not even TDF disagrees with (third party references: ).
    You however avoided my main point: Why should OpenOffice diverge from Wikipedia common practice of separate articles per major version? —KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    The short answer is "because this is an odd and individual case", as has been documented to a querulous degree. The article also splits much more cleanly as projects rather than as version numbers - the former is a sensible and informative split (AOO is an almost completely disjoint project from OOo), the latter is not - which is the important encyclopedic consideration - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    It certainly isn't the case that "OpenOffice with no space and without the .org is the Apache project, period" in most Linux distributions, for instance: "apt-get install openoffice" will install LibreOffice on Debian and derivatives (and I believe the same happens on Red Hat-esque distros), for which the "community manager" of AOO (who, by complete coincidence, is an employee of the company that brokered the trademark assignment in the first place) has openly threatened legal action. That alone would make it something of a special case. That there are well-referenced arguments that the Apache project is an astroturfing campaign with approximately zero buy-in from the free software community which is essentially an attempt at a hostile takeover (by virtue of leveraging its granted trademark, at the behest of the company responsible for said trademark transfer, to attract the majority of the former user base built over years by a departed developer community) is also of significant note. Indeed the latter applies here to the same extent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    If you mean Rob Weir's comments on the matter, he stated outright he wasn't making a legal threat as such (despite long precedent that the sort of sabre-rattling his words appear to be have consistently been found to constitute a legal threat), so I would first assume that he didn't intend his statements as legal threats per se, but as thinking out loud on the matter. The thread in which he argues the point with Gervase Markham (who actually had to deal with closely analogous trademark issues on behalf of Mozilla over the use of the Firefox name) is useful and informative on the matter - and Rob's comments there read to me like a geek pontificating on how he thinks the law should work, not the comments of someone who's e.g. consulted ASF Legal.
    Also, AOO doesn't have a "community manager" title (Apache's not big on titles); Rob does a lot of the leading, but isn't the "leader" per se. Compare how Michael Meeks does a lot of the leading at LO, but is in no way boss of the project - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    Despite that the “most distributions” argument is nothing but claim out of thin air (at least my openSUSE installation does nothing like that), it doesn't even have anything to do with the topic at hand. simply became an Apache project and all copyrights, web domains, and trademarks were transferred to Apache. Whatever Debian maintainers do in their personal bias, does not change anything about this. It's exactly like Apache Subversion in this regard: Originally created by a company as independent FOSS project and later donated to Apache Foundation. You don't see two articles – one for CollabNet Subversion and one for Apache Subversion here.
    If a software article is split, it's common practice at WP to make separate articles for major versions or in case of software suites possibly individual components but not management change. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    You are repeatedly asserting rather than saying anything new. Your suggested alternative makes no sense whatsoever here: in what world is a separate article for AOO 3.4 and AOO 4.0 a sensible idea? Note also that Calligra Suite and KOffice are separate articles, despite clear continuity (and the latter being in past tense as is). You also haven't substantiated nor withdrawn your claim of trademark violation on the part of ASF - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    “in what world is a separate article for AOO 3.4 and AOO 4.0 a sensible idea?”
    Please read my comment again. I was referring to major versions, not minor versions. 3.4 would obviously be covered in the same article as all the other 3.x versions.
    “Note also that Calligra Suite and KOffice are separate articles, despite clear continuity”
    Calligra is a fork of KOffice, not a rename. Both projects existed simultaneously for a while.
    “You also haven't substantiated nor withdrawn your claim of trademark violation on the part of ASF”
    I never claimed any trademark violation by Apache. You have a vivid imagination… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

    I've cited the opinions on AOO fork or not, though I still need an official link from the project for the first bit - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

    You cited Richard Hillesley in two different publications. Two references (The H Online and LinuxUser) by the same guy do not count as well-referenced of any kind of legal fact. Ownership of the software (all copyrights and trademarks) were transferred to Apache and that's an uncontested legal fact. Stop pushing your personal agenda here! --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    PS: You slit the articles before consensus was reached. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    I didn't split them, and they've been split for a while now. What is the precise personal agenda you're accusing me of here? - David Gerard (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

    Do a number of users favour a split between and Apache OpenOffice articles? If so, it must not be because they are "completely different projects". Go to the website, you find Apache OpenOffice. It is POV to say that the is defunct and Apache OpenOffice is a completely different project, derived from the project. It is a fact that the project was handed over to the Apache Software Foundation, which is actively developing it. Make a separate article for the Apache project? Fine, you can link to the new page as the continuation of the previous project. It creates incredible confusion to say that is defunct or moribund, when it is actually and actively being developed under a different license by the Apache Software Foundation. So I'm not going to contest the fact of Apache OpenOffice having it's own page, but I will contest the incorrect information in the infobox about the project being defunct. It is being actively developed as Apache, so just link to the Apache OpenOffice page as the active development of the previous project! That there are also other active projects derived from the previous project is all fine and dandy, they may be even coming along very nicely, but still doesn't take from the fact that "" === "Apache OpenOffice" (triple equals will be understood by programmers among us.) Lwangaman (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    Infobox update[edit]

    Hi, OOo (AOO) 4.0 was released in july, it should be updated in the infobox. Thanks ! Fabrice Ferrer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    Apache OpenOffice is a separate article. This is about the project. See above on this page - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    I've added it to the hatnote. The pages separated very cleanly ('cos they're different projects), but confusion is worth averting - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    I beg to differ. Calling them different projects is incorrect. Go to the website, what do you find? You find Apache Open Office. Calling them different projects is POV. Lwangaman (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    If you came here from a call-to-action on the Apache OpenOffice dev mailing list, it would be proper to note any conflicts of interest - David Gerard (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm wondering what your interests are in this? I am not a member of the Apache Software Foundation, I am a simple lone developer as well as contributor to Wikipedia. I have no partiality between LibreOffice or Apache OpenOffice, both are very good projects. But look at this objectively: who has the website? It's objective that is continued by Apache OpenOffice. That doesn't mean it's the ONLY project that continues development, in fact it is clear from the diagram posted on the article page that there are a number of derivative projects but that Apache OpenOffice inherits the project. You on the other hand seem to be quite intent on affirming that Apache OpenOffice DOES NOT have any legal rights to the project. Why do they have the website then? You need to give objective answers to your own affirmations. And you mustn't revert edits that have founded references, unless you give a founded reference that confutes the reliability of those edits. From what I have learned of the history of these projects (because I'm learning by reading up, not because I'm a direct member of either one), LibreOffice has actually incorporated quite a bit of code from Apache OpenOffice; there is a collaboration between the two projects. So I'm still wondering, what do you have at stake in this? Lwangaman (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    My interest is in an appropriate and useful Wikipedia article. Please note that claiming a conflict of interest with no grounds to do so is a personal attack, and you should probably stop doing that.
    I note also that all your sources are primary sources - your claims of sourcing thus fail WP:RS, WP:V. There are uses for primary sources, but when they are the only source making a claim in the face of extensive third-party sourcing, they fail. The opinion of primary sources should sometimes be noted, and it turns out in this case it is already noted - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    That's funny, I think it was you that claimed COI in your comment, not me. So if that is to be considered a personal attack, sounds like it's on you? My interest is also a clean wikipedia article that does not ingenerate confusion in the ordinary reader. Any ordinary reader who comes to this page and sees "project defunct" really doesn't know what to make of it, then they go to the webpage and see that there are recent releases, so it is not defunct. That is confusing. And I don't see how referring to the website can be considered unreliable. Perhaps there is opinions that it has been unduly taken over by the Apache Software Foundation? Lwangaman (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    I would like to note, that some kind of consensus seems to have been reached on this talk page in the past about splitting the article into separate articles for and Apache OpenOffice. I believe that is a different issue than that of giving incorrect information in the infobox. One thing is trying to keep an article clean by moving a substantial amount of information into a secondary article; another thing is turning that into a debate about whether Apache OpenOffice is to be rebuked as the continuation of the project. Just because there are other projects around that may be doing quite well, does not mean the project was not handed over to the Apache Software Foundation. So it becomes very confusing and tending towards POV to claim that the project is defunct and that Apache OpenOffice has nothing to do with it. In that case the diagram on this page should be modified too, because it currently reflects a continuity. And on that note, why are Sun Microsystems and Oracle Corporation indicated as successors of this project? Shouldn't Oracle get it's own page too in that case? Lwangaman (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

    Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

    Completely out of date[edit]

    Needs updating, with cites. At least to be about the current version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdcntx (talkcontribs) 18:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

    New projects are at different pages, per the headers and intro section. You may wish to review this talk page and its archives in detail - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)