02.05.11
Novell Influence in LibreOffice Still an Apparent Problem
Summary: The OOXML situation in LibreOffice/The Document Foundation raises further questions, which must not only be answered but addressed too
The statement from LibreOffice's 'umbrella' organisation did not quell the protests over OOXML exporters, which seem to have been inherited from Novell’s deal with Microsoft and the Novell influence in The Document Foundation (TDF). While LibreOffice rapidly replaces OpenOffice.org in GNU/Linux distributions (there are even new icons now), Linux Journal has this new article which questions the decision and statement from TDF:
Soon after the release of LibreOffice 3.3, the Steering Committee posted their position on OOXML support in LibreOffice. Some of those that have tested the LibreOffice office suite knows that they can open and save in Microsoft Office formats. So, The Document Foundation supports OOXML then? Well, no, not really.
According to a new foundation wiki page, The Document Foundation does not support OOXML. It states the foundation supports only Open Standards such as the OpenDocument Format (ODF). But if users can read and write to Microsoft Office documents, isn’t that OOXML support?
It’s time for LibreOffice to dump those exporters (along with the rest of the Go-OOXML ‘DNA’) and quit pretending that they are necessary. Some key people in this project receive their wage from Novell, which in turn received the money from Microsoft. This is a recipe for conflicts. Novell’s Michael Meeks even received at least one software patent from the UK and this patent may now be passed to Microsoft. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
twitter said,
February 6, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Is there any legitimate reason to keep the patent trap that Microsoft paid Novell to create? We all know now that Novell’s OOXML code is defective by design and won’t work as it is. Microsoft never sticks to their standards, so OOXML “support” will never really happen. What’s more, almost no one uses OOXML. Will anyone really waste their time and effort as Microsot’s “pawn” or “one night stand” writing this stuff?
A reasonable compromise would be to split the export off as a separate module. That way distributions and users can make the choice themselves. Non US distributions would then be able to have it while US distributions afraid of patent slap down could avoid it.