Comments on: Much ado about nothing

By: CM

CM — Tue, 11 May 2010 10:07:57 +0000

Why does the Free Software Foundation care about the fact OpenOffice.org distributes proprietary plugins? Are you joking? The hint is right there in their name…

This may come as a shock, but the free software movement, that the FSF represents, is against proprietary software. Look it up – it’s true!

By: vexorian

vexorian — Mon, 10 May 2010 22:20:52 +0000

I don’t see what is the big deal about it. That the FSF is dealing with OOo extensions seems to be the logical first step they would take after shifting focus to it. It is really the first thing they care about – It would be difficult for the FSF to give their support to a project in the way of the things that are being requested in this page – if they believed that the project is making too easy to get proprietary extensions.

The new extension repository itself seems to harm no one in particular, it does not even require an OOo fork. Also, I do not think that they doing this repository and they helping in the way that’s suggested in this page have to be mutually exclusive.

By: Links 10/5/2010: Loads of GNU/Linux Gaming News, Mandriva Rumours | Techrights

Mon, 10 May 2010 21:28:13 +0000

[...] Much ado about nothing When I was freshly elected at the OpenOffice.org’s Community Council the Free Software Foundation approached us with a question related to our extensions web site. Basically they felt that we should not be hosting non Free Software extensions and requested we take those down otherwise they would open their own extensions site. [...]

By: Joerg Fischer

Joerg Fischer — Mon, 10 May 2010 17:35:06 +0000

Please notice for instance that it isn’t unusual for major Linux distributors to maintain separate repositories for free and proprietary software. The intention to keep free software apart from non-free software is nothing but natural not only for the FSF. Rather one could wonder why folks think this would be superfluous or unimportant. If the difference between free software (or call it open source software if you like) is so unimportant to mix things up what is the point of it all?

By: charles

charles — Mon, 10 May 2010 16:10:45 +0000

Ciaran, how about the FSF becomes coherent again and helps us define the future of OpenOffice.org by shaping a sustainable governance model that does not only depend on the will of one corporate sponsor?

Now again, you guys pick your fights, I pick mine as well.

By: Ciaran O'Riordan

Ciaran O'Riordan — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:37:39 +0000

Labelling is enough for my personal use, and for that of the OO.o developers, since we know which labels mean “free” and which mean “proprietary”, and we know what it means for software to come with freedom or without. We can make informed decisions.

Unfortunately, this sort of knowledge isn’t yet common among the general public, so labelling isn’t enough.

Instead of promoting non-free software for a certain task, how about using that same space to display an announcement suggesting that writing free software for that task could be useful.

I hope OO.o’s council will reconsider.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:22:44 +0000

btw. on the extensions page you can query for OpenSource extensions

http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/license?op0=OR&filter0=opensource

By: A. Rebentisch

A. Rebentisch — Sun, 09 May 2010 19:31:43 +0000

Indeed, it seems often difficult to prioritize for these NGOs. However, no one seems to be harmed. Licensing is important to them, they are passionate about it.

By: Gilles Gravier

Gilles Gravier — Sun, 09 May 2010 18:23:01 +0000

In particular because FSF’s extension repository is basically the same as querying : http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/license?op0=OR&filter0=opensource …