Oracle Charging for OpenOffice.org?

[cc48510]

I came upon this message while checking my gmail:

"Dear Sir / Madam,

Oracle Open Office is available now at the Oracle Store. OpenOffice.org and Oracle Solaris operating system registered users save an additional 15% when you buy the latest release now from the Oracle Store.

Oracle Open Office Standard Edition is a complete, feature-rich office productivity suite that lists for a fraction of the cost of similar office suites. It includes powerful programs for word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, drawing, database, Web publishing, and more.

The user interface is intuitive and easy to use, and new features include improved compatibility, blog and wiki publishing capabilities, and the ability to edit PDF files. Oracle Open Office is available for Oracle Solaris, MS Windows, Macintosh OS X, and Linux platforms. You get up to five installations per user, each one providing complete functionality designed to meet a broad range of office productivity needs across homes and businesses of every size.

Buy now at the Oracle Store and save an additional 15% off the already low price. Enter ---------- at checkout. Hurry, this offer is valid through May 31.
Oracle Open Office Buy Oracle Open Office Today
$49.95
$41.95
per application user
Buy Now
Enter ---------- at checkout."

But, when I went to http://www.openoffice.org I was still able to download the Torrents as well as the Installers (DEB, RPM, EXE, DMG) themselves. Perhaps they meant StarOffice, but they clearly wrote OpenOffice. Is Oracle planning on charging for OpenOffice.org in the near future...or are they simply trying to take advantage of those too stupid to realize they can get the software for free?

[Method X]

Hi there
As i know, there are different distributions of OO, from different vendors. Some of them are not free. For example OO edition from Novel Corp. I think Oracle will create some non-free versions too.

[meho_r]

This is just renamed StarOffice, Sun's office suite which was always commercial (and it is not "OpenOffice" but "Open Office" /note the space/, with "Oracle" in front). And OpenOffice.org is open source software, so it should be available for free.

[tuddy666]

This is just renamed StarOffice, Sun's office suite which was always commercial (and it is not "OpenOffice" but "Open Office" /note the space/, with "Oracle" in front). And OpenOffice.org is open source software, so it should be available for free.

Pretty much, it's just a rebranded Star Office which happens to share the name, and some elements, of OpenOffice.org

[Twitch6000]

Meh I don't care I use GO-OO :D.

[koenn]

This is just renamed StarOffice, Sun's office suite which was always commercial (and it is not "OpenOffice" but "Open Office" /note the space/, with "Oracle" in front). And OpenOffice.org is open source software, so it should be available for free.

OpenOffice.org is originally based on Star Office. Sun released the source code under the LGPL in 2000. Since then, Star Office is based on the open source OpenOffice.org, with some additional, proprietary components.


And just because something is 'open source" doesn't mean "it should be available for free".

[mickie.kext]

I don't know why they don't like StarOffice name. They could just rename "Sun StarOffice" to "Oracle StarOffice". Redbrandings are never good, it spreads confusion.

[forrestcupp]

I just tells me something that they decided to use the name "Open Office". I really don't like Oracle.

[Ylon]

Taken there (http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/open-office/043540.html)


6. What are the differences between Oracle Open Office and OpenOffice.org?

At the core binary level there are no differences. Oracle Open Office is Oracle's professional distribution of OpenOffice.org and customers purchasing Oracle Open Office get:

* Oracle warranty and indemnification
* Ability to deploy hot fixes, patches and updates (OpenOffice.org cannot be updated but requires a full re-installation)
* Enterprise extensions like MS SharePoint and Alfresco connectors only available with Oracle Open Office
* Enterprise Tools for help in migrating to Oracle Open Office—a Microsoft Office document analyzer and a tool that builds customized user installations
* Bundled extensions which are ready to use comes with Oracle Open Office; with OpenOffice.org you have to download each extension separately
* Committed timelines and roadmaps
* Customization opportunities



more: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/open-office/043537.html


Anyway, anther (not OO's core based) office suite aviable for linux is Softmaker Linux 2010 (http://www.softmaker.com/english/ofl_en.htm). You can download the trial to check it.

Sometime many complain about the lower quality/incompatibility of OpenOffice vs Ms-Office. Since ms-office don't come for free.. it's useful propose to whom complain to give a try to the more "company driven" office packages: Oracle OO or Softmaker (trial before buy aviable)

Plus there's always Symphony by IBM which is completely free (OO.org core)

[mickie.kext]

Plus there's always Symphony by IBM which is completely free (OO.org core)

It is not "completely free". Just free as in beer. It's completely closed source.

[-grubby]

I just tells me something that they decided to use the name "Open Office". I really don't like Oracle.


I agree. It's like they named it just to be confusing.

[KiwiNZ]

It is not "completely free". Just free as in beer. It's completely closed source.

Nothing wrong with that, Lotus Symphony is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License.
Does not detract from the product.

[Lux Perpetua]

Nothing wrong with that, Lotus Symphony is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License.Do you have a reference for that claim?

[KiwiNZ]

Do you have a reference for that claim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_symphony

[koenn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_symphony
"It is based on ... OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 for the core office suite code.

OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes.
Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony. "

Doesn't really say that IBM Lotus Symphony is open source, or LGPL, at all.

[KiwiNZ]

"It is based on ... OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 for the core office suite code.

OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes.
Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony. "

Doesn't really say that IBM Lotus Symphony is open source, or LGPL, at all.

where did I say it was open source?

[koenn]

where did I say it was open source?


here:

Nothing wrong with that, Lotus Symphony is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License.


Gnu LGPL is an open source license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

[KiwiNZ]

here:


Gnu LGPL is an open source license.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

I did not say it was Open source . I quoted the License it was under. Please do not misquote.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License



"The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter can be linked to (in the case of a library, 'used by') a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.[1] This non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any chosen terms if it is not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the terms must allow "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Whether a work that uses an LGPL program is a derivative work or not is a legal issue. A standalone executable that dynamically links to a library is generally accepted as not being a derivative work (in LGPL). It would be considered a "work that uses the library" and paragraph 5 of the LGPL applies.
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
Essentially, if it is a "work that uses the library", then it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided."

[mickie.kext]

Nothing wrong with that, Lotus Symphony is released under the GNU Lesser General Public License.
Does not detract from the product.

Neither Lotus Symphony or any parts of it are released under LGPL. If it was released under LGPL, it would be open source. When you say that something is under LGPL it means that it is open source/Free software. Lotus is not. It is forked from older version of OpenOffice which was released under SISSL and that licence allowed proprietary forks.

[koenn]

I did not say it was Open source . I quoted the License it was under. Please do not misquote.

Misquote ?
You mentioned a license. That license is an open source license.
I just added that up.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License



"The main difference between the GPL and the LGPL is that the latter can be linked to (in the case of a library, 'used by') a non-(L)GPLed program, regardless of whether it is free software or proprietary software.[1] This non-(L)GPLed program can then be distributed under any chosen terms if it is not a derivative work. If it is a derivative work, then the terms must allow "modification for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications." Whether a work that uses an LGPL program is a derivative work or not is a legal issue. A standalone executable that dynamically links to a library is generally accepted as not being a derivative work (in LGPL). It would be considered a "work that uses the library" and paragraph 5 of the LGPL applies.
A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
Essentially, if it is a "work that uses the library", then it must be possible for the software to be linked with a newer version of the LGPL-covered program. The most commonly used method for doing so is to use "a suitable shared library mechanism for linking". Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided."

The above is about the licensing of software that is derived from, or links to, a LGPL'd library (or other software under that license). It does NOT refer to the LGPL'd software itself. The LGPL'd software is open source.

[KiwiNZ]

Neither Lotus Symphony or any parts of it are released under LGPL. If it was released under LGPL, it would be open source. When you say that something is under LGPL it means that it is open source/Free software. Lotus is not. It is forked from older version of OpenOffice which was released under SISSL and that licence allowed proprietary forks.

Wrong!

"IBM Lotus Symphony consists of:
IBM Lotus Symphony Documents, a word processor
IBM Lotus Symphony Spreadsheets, a spreadsheet program
IBM Lotus Symphony Presentations, a presentation program
Each application is split into tabs.
Symphony supports the OpenDocument formats, as well as the binary Microsoft Office and Lotus SmartSuite formats.[3] It can also export Portable Document Format (PDF) files and import Office Open XML files.
Symphony is available for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X. It is based on Eclipse Rich Client Platform from IBM Lotus Expeditor for its shell and OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 for the core office suite code.[4] OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony."

I have just confirmed this with an IBM Executive.

[mickie.kext]

Wrong!

"IBM Lotus Symphony consists of:
IBM Lotus Symphony Documents, a word processor
IBM Lotus Symphony Spreadsheets, a spreadsheet program
IBM Lotus Symphony Presentations, a presentation program
Each application is split into tabs.
Symphony supports the OpenDocument formats, as well as the binary Microsoft Office and Lotus SmartSuite formats.[3] It can also export Portable Document Format (PDF) files and import Office Open XML files.
Symphony is available for Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X. It is based on Eclipse Rich Client Platform from IBM Lotus Expeditor for its shell and OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 for the core office suite code.[4] OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony."

I have just confirmed this with an IBM Executive.

So you still claim that it is released under LGPL? If so, give me a link to download the code.

[scouser73]

Here is a wiki entry for it; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Lotus_Symphony

[KiwiNZ]

So you still claim that it is released under LGPL? If so, give me a link to download the code.

Clearly you do not understand what the Lesser GPL means . Please read it agan ...it means " IBM does not have to release the source code "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_GPL

[mickie.kext]

Clearly you do not understand what the Lesser GPL means . Please read it agan ...it means " IBM does not have to release the source code "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_GPL

Umm... did you read that article? LGPL is basically GPL with linking exception. It is same as GPL, exept that parts that are dynamically linked to LGPL program can be proprietary. Statically linked parts are still affected by the license, and have to be open sourced. In other words, it is weak copy-left license. You obviously mistaken LGPL for BSD license:).

PS: This argument is pointless because it is clearly stated on Wikipedia that Lotus is proprietary. If new version of OO.o is integrated in it, then IBM probably made a deal with Sun/Oracle to give them permission to use code without releasing it under LGPL. Sun was sole copyright holder of OpenOffice, so they can give that permission.

[chillicampari]

I agree. It's like they named it just to be confusing.

Yeah, I'm wondering if people I recommend the .org one to will think that it's some sketchy non-legit warez version now. Annoying.

[Lux Perpetua]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_symphonyWhere does it say that Lotus Symphony is released under the LGPL? (Hint: it doesn't.)

[lisati]

OpenOffice.org is originally based on Star Office.

Doesn't worry me much, see above. I've got a Linux version of an old version of Star Office somewhere but haven't bothered getting it to work.

[koenn]

Wrong!
It is based on Eclipse Rich Client Platform from IBM Lotus Expeditor for its shell and OpenOffice.org 1.1.4 for the core office suite code.[4] OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL, which allowed for entities to change the code without releasing their changes. Therefore, IBM does not have to release the source code of Symphony."

I have just confirmed this with an IBM Executive.

that's what I quoted earlier from wikipedia.

it says that OpenOffice.org version 1.1.4 was dual-licensed under both the GNU Lesser General Public License and Sun's own SISSL.

it does not say that Symphony is licensed LGPL.

[koenn]

Doesn't worry me much, see above. I've got a Linux version of an old version of Star Office somewhere but haven't bothered getting it to work.

and there is nothing to worry about
I posted that because earlier in this thread there was some confusing information about the relation between Star Office, OpenOffice.org and Oracle Open Office

[koenn]

Clearly you do not understand what the Lesser GPL means . Please read it agan ...it means " IBM does not have to release the source code "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_GPL

I think it's you who doesn't know what Lesser GPL means.
From the link you quote :
"LGPL is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)."
"The LGPL places copyleft restrictions on the program itself but does not apply these restrictions to other software that merely links with the program."

So, for Symphony, this means :
- since it's based on an OOo version with LGPL and SISSL, IBM does not have to release source code

- if, however, as you claim, Symphony itself is released under LGPL, IBM would have committed itself to releasing the sources. This is hypothetical, because contrary to what you claim, there is no evidence that Symphony is released under the LGPL. (the wikipedia info refers to OOo, the Symphony website doesn't mention any license)

[KiwiNZ]

As I said ,I spoke to an IBM executive . But really I dont care both Open Office and Symphony are inferior products that I really don't care about.

[forrestcupp]

Clearly you do not understand what the Lesser GPL means . Please read it agan ...it means " IBM does not have to release the source code "


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_GPLI hate to say it, but I don't think you're right about this. Any software released under the LGPL is open source. It's the other software that it links to that doesn't have to be open source. That's the difference. With the GPL, you are limited to what you can dynamically link to because it has to be compatible with GPL. LGPL is the same as GPL, except the other software you link to or that links to it doesn't have to be open source. So if Symphony were LGPL, it would have to be open source, but it could link to other software that is not. Obviously, that's not the case.

A similar example that may help to understand, even though it's under a different but similar license, is the wxWidgets license. wxWidgets is open source, but anyone can link to it and use it to create a program that can be proprietary.


As I said ,I spoke to an IBM executive . But really I dont care both Open Office and Symphony are inferior products that I really don't care about.If what you quoted was all that the executive told you, there's no sign in what he said that Symphony is released under the LGPL license. All he implied is that maybe some of the modules are LGPL, and that it was based on an old dual licensed version of openoffice.org. They didn't use the LGPL version of OO.o. They used the SISSL version because that allowed them to do whatever they wanted with it without having to release the changes.