Misplaced Pages

I fully agree with Tóraí and Palu. There never was a consensus for the structure of the articles. A tiny minority just went ahead and created that mess. Both David and Walter are impossible to work with but I don't have the time to correct this mess (and they'd revert that anyway…). It's a fact that it's not Misplaced Pages policy to create new articles for software just because management changes (or because the source code is hosted under a new domain – if that was the case every application that moved from SourceForge to GitHub would need a new article…. It it policy to create articles for new major versions if a combined article is unwieldy. However arguments and even simple democracy (right now it's 3 against 2) once again bounce off these people. I will not argue with them any longer. My stance is clear and will not change. Should reason prevail at some point, I'd be glad to help to transform the current mess into articles articles for each major OO version. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I asked the question and it did't look like anyone could answer it. But, rather than labouring the point, and making more of a fuss, I'm happy to live with the sitatuion and move on as best we can.

Yes, "Apache OpenOffice" is the primary topic. When folk refer to OpenOffice now, that's what they mean. They don't mean version <=3.3. Apache OpenOffice is the software that's at www.openoffice.org and that's the branding of the software that going to remain there. OpenOffice.org <= 3.3 is described on that website now as "legacy" software (see). OpenOffice == Apache OpenOffice, now and into the future.

Like Palu, I'm also worried about how the situation is presented here. However, that's a matter easily (even if, I expect, laboriously) resolved through rigorous enforcement of verifiability. --Tóraí (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet you haven't provided any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Tóraí, you have completely failed to address the extensive references in the article itself. See the section that notes that AOO (a single first party) claims unbroken continuation, but multiple third-party RSes, including academic ones, consider it a separate project or even a fork. I brought this up already and you appear to be simply ignoring it - but you can't ignore the RSes if you're going to claim that verifiability is relevant (which of course it is). "Verifiability" doesn't mean "take whatever the first party says about itself and ignore multiple third party RSes" - David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah ... great minds, eh? I've opened a thread below. --Tóraí (talk) 09:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference checks

See also related discussion from January, 2013. --Tóraí (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing for "discontinued" etc.

There's surprisingly sparse sourcing in the article for an issue that has generated so much heat on this talk page. As far as I can see there is only one reference used to support two referenced statements to the effect that the project has been closed/discontinued. (I've ignored unreferenced statements.)

Is that correct?

• Article: "The project was closed by Oracle Corporation, the then-owner of Sun, in April 2011."
• Article: "Development was discontinued in April 2011..."
• Source: "Oracle Corporation today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office." (ref)

This source doesn't support the statement that the software has been discontinued or that the project has been closed, with the exception of an Oracle-offered commercial version.

Is there a source that says this software project (or development of it) has been discontinued? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Try this reference in the article which explains Oracle laid everyone off: Phipps, Simon (20 May 2011). "OpenOffice.org and contributor agreements". LWN.net. Retrieved 16 June 2013. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't say the project was closed. In fact, it says the opposite, that a project shell was left open. Neither does it say development was discontinued. Though it does say that there was "no development work in progress" at that time of writing.

Is there a source for the above statements? --Tóraí (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The project shell was the source code, but I can see from your mocking above you have no idea what source code is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What I know, or what you know, is immaterial. Reliable sources are what count. Is there a source that says that the project was "closed" or that development on it was "discontinued"? --Tóraí (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, actually what you don't know is killing us all here. We're offering you RSes that offer clear proof to anyone with knowledge of development nomenclature and yet when you read them you don't understand. So I'm sorry, it's the crux of the problem here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter, there's no technical "nomenclature" in the source you provided. The relevant passage reads: "As far as I can tell all that's left of OO.o is the project shell, with no development work in progress because Oracle has now stood down all the staff it had working on the project..."

All that means is that no development work was in progress at that time. A lull or pause in productive development, particularly ahead of the transfer of a project to another corporation, is not the same as development being discontinued or the project being closed down.

Two weeks later (2 June), Oracle transferred ownership to Apache, which involved lots of work (even if not productive development for a long time after). I don't know how much experience you have of software development, but it does involve bureaucracy. The transfer of a project like OpenOffice involves a whole heap of non-productive work. Just look at the list of work items done after Apache received ownership on 2 June. So, even if there was "no development work in progress" on 20 May, you can be sure that project management, stakeholders, lawyers, business types, and infrastructure people were very busy preparing the handover.

So, no, someone saying on May 20 that, "As far as I can tell ... no development work in progress..." is not the same as saying the project closed or development was discontinued. Unbeknowns to the author at that time, ownership of the project was to be transferred to Apache two weeks later. Putting a hold on productive development ahead of that transfer is only normal so that the lawyers, project managers, intrastructure people and business types aren't working against a moving target. (Not to mention that bean counters would be looking at developers working on the project and think, 'Two weeks from now, we're not going to own this project. Why waste money paying you to work on something we don't care about anymore when you could be doing something else or we could let you go.' That's just resource management in a commercial operation.)

Sources need to be explicit. So, can you please provide a source that supports the statements made in the article? Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The term "project has been closed" is the technical nomenclature and you don't understand it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Is there a source that supports the claim made in the article that the project was closed?

For example, here's a source from the same time to say Oracle's intention was to transfer the project to Apache: "Oracle announced a proposal this week to transfer the OpenOffice.org (OOo) project to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)."

Here's another also from the time: "Oracle is shunting OpenOffice onto the Apache Software Foundation, sidelining the original OpenOffice community that forked off the project as LibreOffice last year."

And here's a source to say they did transfer the project to Apache: "Oracle transferred control of OpenOffice to the Apache Software Foundation, while LibreOffice is maintained by the newly created Document Foundation."

So, is there a source that says the project closed? From what I can see, and what sources say, is that ownership of it was just transferred to another corporation. --Tóraí (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I would suggest that the source that states "project has been closed" is a source that supports it.

In this sense, "project", means two separate things. As an FOSS project, it can never close. The source code that has had an open source license applied to can never be removed from the public. It can, however change over time. No one owns that source code. However, certain companies or organizations can take ownership of a project and guide it. Again, this relates to Linux. No one controls the Linux kernel and many of the utilities associated with it, but any changes to those open source elements are returned to the project. That is why when you dismissed the argument above based on Linux I suspected that you knew nothing about open source. So at the cor of OpenOffice is a set of code. All of the development efforts related to that core project may return to the core. All of the efforts that are being led by Apache on the core can be returned to the core. All of the efforts made on the core by governments and educational facilities around the world can return to the core. They may keep their modifications for themselves and work on branches of the code. All that means is that if a change is made to something they've worked on, they have to make their code work with the public changes rather than the other way around. So no one actually owns the FOSS code, but companies are free to brand their own versions of it. While development on the project called OpenOffice may have shifted to a new company, nothing else has changed.

So feel free to add your sources to the article to support that work has stopped on this commercialized project and has been handed to Oracle, but the two articles do not merge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Oracle closed StarDivision and fired the remaining staff. They left the machines up with the code on it, but literally no-one was working on it. That's pretty "closed". And there's multiple sources to this effect linked in the article.

Oracle then spent two months discussing the matter with IBM, The Document Foundation and Apache. They then gave Apache the option on the trademark, and Apache took on the project. A couple of months after that, Oracle actually gave Apache the code (an import of the codebase and its history into Apache's Subversion server). Again, lots of sources here. (Some press, some first parties involved in the discussions; so may not be Misplaced Pages RSes, and would need linking with caution, but if you really wanted to claim something entirely different happened you'd need at the least a contemporary countervailing account).

More broadly: what you appear to have done is construct a narrative in your mind that supports your contention, then defy us to prove things didn't happen according to your narrative. And never mind the sources that are already in the article - have you read all of them? I have. If you're going to come up with novel narratives, you need to actually not contradict the multiple sourcings in the article. (And to understand the terms of art used in the sources, as your interpretations suggest you don't.) As I've said once already, there's good reason every phrase in the article has multiple third-party sources. If you want to come up with a novel narrative, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to have read them all and understand all of the POVs in play - David Gerard (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

David, all I am asking for is a source that supports statements made in the article. As you know, sources need to be explicit (exactly to prevent people adding material based on narratives they've constructed in their mind). And the burden lies with those who want the challenged statements to remain.

The two statements I've pulled out above aren't supported by the reference provided. Without telling a story (just in case you construct a narrative in your mind), is there a source that supports them? After months of discussion, this should be no great task for you if the statements are verifiable. --Tóraí (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I'm not going to get into a discussion with you about open source. After reading the above, it's a black hole I would never go down voluntarily.

I would suggest that the source that states "project has been closed" is a source that supports it.

Bang on. That's exactly what we need.

Take Fuduntu, for example. If an article was to state that that project has closed, it could site this source: "The team in charge of maintaining and developing Fuduntu, a Linux-based operating system designed as a hybrid of Fedora and Ubuntu, voted Sunday to close down the project." Or even this one: "Exactly a week after releasing a fresh update to its increasingly popular Linux distribution, the Fuduntu project on Monday announced that it's closing its doors for good."

So, in the case of OpenOffice.org, is there a reliable source to support the statement that the OpenOffice.org project has closed? There are reliable sources to support statements that the project was transferred to the Apache Foundation (example). And that OpenOffice.org was renamed Apache OpenOffice (example).

As you know, all statements that appear in articles must be verifable. So is the statement that the OpenOffice.org project has closed verifiable? --Tóraí (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Any joy on finding a source saying the project was closed? --Tóraí (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"In April 2011, Oracle ... fired the remaining StarDivision development team."

This statements appears in the article and is supported by the following references:

1. ": As far as I can tell all that's left of OO.o is the project shell, with no development work in progress because Oracle has now stood down all the staff it had working on the project..." (src)

However, "stood down" is not the same as "fired".

2. "After Oracle (which, in turn, bought Sun in 2010) called a halt to development on the project and handed off the code base to the Apache Foundation in 2011, the Star Division team got laid off with everyone else." (src)

"After Oracle (which, in turn, bought Sun in 2010) called ... handed off the code base to the Apache Foundation" is after April 2011 (at least post June 2011).

I'm going to remove the first reference and amend the statement to accord with the second reference. --Tóraí (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

This is completely wrong. Oracle shut the project, firing the developers, then, after deliberations involving IBM and the Document Foundation, handed it to Apache. I am reverting your changes as they have the sequence of events completely backwards, in support of a narrative that is utterly original synthesis from cherrypicked and misconstrued sources. You also clumsily deleted a reference in the process - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

What does the source say? Please quote the section of either reference that supports the statement: "In April 2011, Oracle ... and fired the remaining StarDivision development team".

And I didn't "clumsily deleted a reference". I removed an statement that wasn't supported by the given reference. I'll open another tread on the statement I deleted. --Tóraí (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that Oracle donated the code to Apache then fired the StarDivision staff, even though Apache didn't even accept the project until two months later. (That's a ref on Apache OpenOffice.)

This is not using the sources - this is coming up with a completely bizarre timeline that contradicts sources already present in the articles you think should be merged, then defying others to find sources disproving your bizarre timeline. This strongly suggests you really, really haven't read the sources, and that you don't really understand the sources you did read - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You claimed that Oracle donated the code to Apache then fired the StarDivision staff...

I'm not claiming that. It's what the Gold source says: "After Oracle ... handed off the code base to the Apache Foundation in 2011, the Star Division team got laid off with everyone else." (My emphasis.)

--Tóraí (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"...some speculate that it was due to the loss of mindshare with much of the community moving to LibreOffice..."

I cannot find anything to support this statement in the given reference.

Is the statement verifiable? --Tóraí (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

"...others suggest it was a commercial decision..."

This relates to the firing of the Sun Division team. The reference is the one that says the staff were "stood down" (not the same as fired) and is from May 20 (before Jon Gold ref says the firing took place).

I'm don't dispute the truth of the matter, and the source bring up interesting reasoning behind Oracle decision around OpenOffice.org, but I don't think it's a suitable source for exactly what it says.

Possibly the statement could be re-written to accord more closely to the source. --Tóraí (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming a difference between "stood down" and "fired"? What? - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. "stood down" has two potential meanings here (OED):

1. withdraw or resign from a position or office
2. relax or cause to relax after a state of readiness

The first of these could mean 'fired', in this case, but could just 'assigned a different role'. The second of these would mean to be the put onto other, less immediate duties. It's unclear what the author means.

The substance about what the author is writing about CLAs is pertinent, though. --Tóraí (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two linked sources in the article already say their employment ceased, whatever word you want to use for it - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

David, the claim being here is not that the staff were fired (that verifiable through the Laguna interview) but that "others suggest it was a commercial decision". What's the source for that? --Tóraí (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"In June 2011, Oracle contributed the trademarks to the Apache Software Foundation."

The reference for this statement doesn't mention anything about trademarks.

What it does talk about is that " Donating OpenOffice.org to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future." etc.

The trademark question, I know, is verifiable. I just wonder how an obvious reference such as this came to refer to something as narrow as trademarks. And is typical, I think, of poor adherance to WP:V on the issue of Apache and OpenOfice in the article.

How did this come about? --Tóraí (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The trademark was literally all they had. They later contributed the code itself, in August, and various databases, the OOo wiki, etc later on (though third-party sources may not have bothered covering this, the first-party mundane technical sources of the project noted it as it happened) - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Trademarks aren't mentioned in this source. As I said, I know it's verifiable though other means, I just wonder how a source that says nothing about trademarks came to be associated with a statement only about trademarks.

Is there a source for what you just described? --Tóraí (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"In April 2011, Oracle stopped development of OpenOffice.org..."

This statement is not supported by the given reference.

The reference says, "Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office."

This doesn't say Oracle stopped development. It says it plans (at an unstated time in future) to move development to a purely community-based model. It doesn't say that it stopped development (even in-house Oracle development) in April 2011.

Now, before David starts flaming. I'm dealing here with verifiability, not truth. The "truth" is of no interest to us. --Tóraí (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two sources already in the article for the fact that Oracle's employment of the StarDivision staff ceased.

The phrasing "verifiability, not truth" was removed because it was used by people in this manner, i.e. to try to support absurd claims. It is possible to come up with a strange sequence of events bearing no resemblance to what happened - e.g. the edit in which you claimed that Oracle donated the code to Apache then fired the StarDivision staff, even though Apache didn't even accept the project until two months later - but it isn't a goal and it isn't something to try to get away with. If accuracy is not of interest to you, then an online encyclopedia may not be a good place for you to be writing, particularly on topics you don't understand. Misplaced Pages's epistemology is a fragile compromise, rather than a reliable truth-divining mechanism - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then let's stick with the new wording on WP:V says: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

There are two sources already in the article for the fact that Oracle's employment of the StarDivision staff ceased. The statement doesn't say anything about StarDivion staff being fired. It says, "April 2011, Oracle stopped development of OpenOffice.org". Is there a source for that statement?

Consider, for a moment, that Oracle could have fired all of StarDivision and move development somewhere else. (I don't care if that sounds impractical, I'm merely illustrating the difference between a division being fired and development stopping.) What we want for this statement is a reference to say Oracle stopped development on OpenOffice.org in April 2011. Who they fired is irreverent to that statement.

If the statement itself cannot be verified then it needs to be amended or phrased some other way (that is verifiable) at the very least. --Tóraí (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"It also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License..."

Before even asking if the reference for this supports the claim, is this reference is an email? And appears to be speculating on the matter. As we all know, there can be no self-published sources (except in very exceptional circumstances).

The associated statement is made as a bald statement of fact. What is the justification for using this email? And how does it support the statement? --Tóraí (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a statement from the project itself, so is authoritative in a technical (legal) context, i.e. this is what is legally happening. Certainly it's not as good as a high-quality third-party source on a technical matter, but you'd need something pretty good to ignore it. The question of whether Oracle actually just AL2'd the lot or what precisely happened was one of considerable concern at the time.

Note that primary sources are to be used with caution, rather than regarded as verboten. A clear statement from the project about just what the legal situation is with relicensing the code may well be a usable source as to just what the legal situation is with relicensing the code - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used with caution. But there are a number of the things I find worrying about this source:

1. It's not a "clear statement from the project". It's a discussion between two members of the project.
2. Hamilton's comments begins with: "Rob makes some important points. Here's my analysis based on that..." Robs comments include, "My impression I think the ALv2 is attached during the IP review..." Those are speculative statements. The author aren't certain at the time of writing. Yet, the reference is presented as a matter of fact.
3. I don't see where the source says that " also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License..." If anything it says the opposite: "Oracle did not put anything under the ALv2 with its Software Grant Agreement."

--Tóraí (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"...at the suggestion of IBM (to whom Oracle had contractual obligations concerning the code)"

It's not clear what the associated sources for this statement are in reference to: the whole statement or just the part in parenthesis?

• H-Online
• ZDNet

If it's just the part in parenthesis, it a synthesis to combine that with "at the suggestion of IBM".

If it's the whole thing then I cannot find reference to this in the sources provided. It's possible I'm missing it in the H-Online source. I don't think I could miss it in the ZDNet source. --Tóraí (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what your question is. The ZDnet article notes "Oracle, which I'm told has contractual obligations to IBM to see that OpenOffice continued to be developed, was fine with this." This entire page of the H-Online article is about Oracle's obligations to IBM concerning the OOo codebase - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The article says that Oracle contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License at the suggestion of IBM. It hints that this was because of contractual obligations.

If the references are intended to support the whole statement:

• The question is: What does the ZDNet or H-Online article say about why (or who's suggestion) Oracle decided to contribute Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing? Does it say it was at IBM's suggestion?

If the references are only intended to support the statement in parenthesis then it's a synthesis to combine that with "at the suggestion of IBM" because it would imply more than the references support on their own. --Tóraí (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

" also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License ... as IBM did not want the code put under a copyleft license."

The associated reference for this statement is here.

It a blog entry from IBM explaining why they chose to donate Symphony to Apache instead of LibreOffice. It doesn't say anything that I can see about Oracle's decision to contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License because of IBM not wanting the code put under a copyleft license.

Have I missed something? Or is the statement verifiable though another source? --Tóraí (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The blog entry notes IBM's preference for non-copylefted software, particularly in the context of the OOo codebase - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But the article says, " also contributed Oracle-owned code to Apache for relicensing under the Apache License ... as IBM did not want the code put under a copyleft license."

Does the blog entry say anything about Oracle's reason to contribute Oracle-owned code to Apache? --Tóraí (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Apache project removed or replaced as much code from OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta 1, including fonts, under licenses unacceptable to Apache..."

The source for this statement doesn't appear to support the it. Is the statement verifiable? --Tóraí (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That does need a better source - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Any more input?

If there is no more input to the above, I'm going to assume the statements are unverifiable as they stand and either a) amend them to more closely match sources, b) remove them or c) mark them as lacking sources. --Tóraí (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You've already demonstrated (as multiply cited above) that don't understand the topic, you don't understand the references and you don't understand the replies to your queries. Thus, such unilateral action would be wilfully ignoring input - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this still going on? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparently so - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

" released 3.4.0 in May 2012."

The reference for this statement doesn't say when the release took place. I presume this is easily verifiable though another source. --Tóraí (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Move request

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)

At the time I post this comment, it's 100% against. It is possible your goal regarding these articles is misconceived - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't have any "goal" regarding any of "these articles" beyond improving them. If you don't mind me saying, David, the comment above shows signs of a battle field mentality and a lack of good faith. --Tóraí (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider it Stockholm syndrome rather than battle field mentality. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it isn't healthy. Maybe people need to come out of the trenches a little more. --Tóraí (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had to take a break from Misplaced Pages for a while, but will return to looking at the RS issue in a short while.

I get what you're saying, LookingGlass, but I don't believe we're here to right great wrongs or advocate a point of view. That's why I'm taking an RS-based approach rather than arguing the toss one-way-or-another.

FWIT, I have no personal or professional connections to Oracle, IBM, Sun, OpenOffice or LibreOffice. I am listed as a contributor to Apache - but for an entirely different project. --Tóraí (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Great article but ...

Despite inline references numbered in the hundreds, the section on Active developments is difficult to understand, at least for someone who doesn't already know what it is saying.

The main article on LibreOfice describes it as being a "fork" whereas the main article on Apache OO describes it as being a "descendant". This seems a POV interpretation. It is stated in the section on Apache OO that Oracle "donated" the code to Apache, but as this was freely available anyway in what way can it be said to have been donated? If it was infact freely available then Oracle also "donated" the code to LibreOffice. The striking difference between the two would seem to be then that Oracle favours LibreOffice, as that is what it supplies in its version of Linux, rather than that it "donated" the code to Apache. So, either both are "descendants" or LibreOffice is and Apache OO is not, but I can't see it as being the opposite way around. I think the first sentence of the Apache OO section should be edited to delete the peacocking.

LookingGlass (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, Oracle did donate something related to the code: the power to release Oracle-controlled code (either written by Sun/Star/Oracle or assigned to them under a CLA) under the Apache License, rather than LGPL; and they specifically gave Apache the power to go through the code drop, releasing code as ALv2 where it could be released as ALv2. (Since Oracle didn't actually own everything in the code drop, Apache had to go through and check. This took quite a while.)

I note also that Oracle Linux only adopted LibreOffice in mid-2012, well after the Apache donation, so your other change may imply these actually happened anywhere near each other. (I was initially confused by this too, but check the dates all this happened.) Of course, it's not because Oracle made a deliberate choice, but because that was just what RHEL (Oracle Linux's upstream) did - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. IMO and despite your edit the article still doesn't make this clear, sounding as if Apache is the "true descendant" and LibreOffice a usurper of some kind. Of course this is only if you haven't read what you wrote above etc, but t5he article should stand alone and be clear. Can you edit accordingly? I appreciate the addition of tthe words "and trademarks" but this, though probably correct, doesn't seem to focus on making the reality clear. It didn't to me and still wouldn't if I came across it fresh. LookingGlass (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. No-one objects to LO being called a "fork", but some call AOO a "fork" and others (particularly the project, but not solely the project) hotly dispute this. I thought noting it in the AOO section with citations was sufficient without appearing to push a view ... I don't have an alternate wording off the top of my head, feel free to propose some. Basically we need more people bothering with the issue though - David Gerard (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's in the hope of the help ever being updated ... I sort of potter about ;-) The books from ODF Authors are a good start IME, to get to know the programs and write about them sensibly - most functionality is still the same between OOo/AOO/LO, after all - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, LibreOffice bundles its offline help files separately: you can install the help file from the "Help for offline use" link on this page, for example. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Openoffice not discontinued

I just installed openoffice and it worked, so how is it discontinued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hug0905 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the Apache version of OpenOffice not the original project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to start the page by saying that Open Office is a discontinued office suite. I almost decided to give up on using Open Office because it had been discontinued. I think there needs to be mention of the successors to Open Office right at the start of the article. If I go to the web site OpenOffice.org, there is no indication that they think they have been discontinued. Steven Greenberg (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Steve Greenberg

One active successor is literally mentioned before the start of the article ... and three successors are named at the end of the first para. What wording would you suggest? (I've taken out the word "discontinued" for now, and made the infobox status "Discontinued, with successors".) - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I just installed openoffice and it worked, so how is it discontinued?

I think it is misleading to start the page by saying that Open Office is a discontinued ... I almost decided to give up on using Open Office because it had been discontinued.

It is not discontinued. And it is entirely misleading to start the article like that. The notion that it has been discontinued is a POV pushed religiously by David Gerard and Walter Görlitz and is plainly contradicted by fact. But, just as David himself might say, "some editors of site conduct 'battles to the death for insanely low stakes'." --Tóraí (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I've recently studied all the facts I could find on this (on WP and further afield) and it's clear at least to my small intellect that the original OpenOffice.org project was killed off by Oracle and reincarnated at The Document Foundation and then at Apache. It's also clear that there are people in the Apache Open Office project who hate this obvious fact being mentioned. The formulation "OO.o discontinued with AOO and LO as successors" seems to me to do an admirable job as an NPOV summary of this divisive issue and I really can't understand why you dislike it so much. Maybe my inexperience is making me miss something - can you educate me? Thanks! ClareTheSharer (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that OpenOffice.org is discontinued is a fact not a PoV. That Apache has taken over the project and renamed it is a fact not a PoV. As ClareTheSharer stated, OpenOffice.org has been discontinued with and Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice are its successors. So add anoth editor who is pushing an opinion other than yours. Feel free to continue pushing your battle to the death for insanely low stakes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That Apache has taken over the project and renamed it is a fact not a PoV. Exactly. Apache took over the project. And they renamed it. We don't create a new article every time a piece of software gets renamed. If we did, we'd have separate article every time a project gets transferred to Apache. Or when Oracle briefly renamed it Oracle Open Office after taking over from Sun.

Liking the transfer to Apache with the schism between OpenOffice and the Documentation Foundation misses the point of what constitutes (transferring) a software project. The transfer to Apache involved the transfer of the legal ownership of trademarks, domain names, copyright, etc. from one owner (Oracle) to another (Apache). There was lengthy and involving work from the previous owner (Oracle) and the new owner (Apache) in that transfer. It was a legal transfer of ownership, not merely the forking of code or the picking up of an abandoned project.

As for other editors, I'm with the two initial posters to this tread (and others before them). And far from alone in thinking the POV here is out of step with the facts. --Tóraí (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We do create new articles when software and other items are renamed. See the Windows articles, OS X articles, various iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad and other articles. Datsun and Nissan. I could go on. Also, if an article would be too long, it's split. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For significant versions of software, yes, we have separate articles (see the guidelines on when to spin out a new article). So, we have an article on Windows 8.1. But we don't say that Microsoft Windows is discontinued because of it.

On the question of whether we create a new article when software (or any other subject) gets renamed: no, we do not. We may rename the article according to our policies. But we do not create a new article just because something gets renamed. That would be content forking, which is a generally a bad thing.

Now, is there actual disagreement that the project was transferred from Oracle to Apache? And that Apache rebranded it? What is the source to say it has been discontinued? --Tóraí (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that OpenOffice (and its forks) are not significant? SPINOUT is related to size it does not address new company ownership, which is the case here. If there was enough for a common OpenOffice, we should create it. There isn't.

There are sources that the project was transferred to Apache, but not that they rebranded it: that's simply obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course Libre Office and others deserve articles of their own. This tread is about the claim that OpenOffice.org has been disconnecteddiscontinued (Edit: --Tóraí (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)). You appear to support that claim. I and others say it was renamed to Apache OpenOffice.

Here's a source that says that OpenOffice.org was renamed to Apache OpenOffice: "In June 2011 OpenOffice.org has been renamed to Apache OpenOffice..." Is there a source to support the claim that OpenOffice.org is disconnecteddiscontinued (--Tóraí (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC))? --Tóraí (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no source that says they're "disconnected" because that's a lie and a word you introduced as essentially a fallacy of equivocation. OpenOffice.org, Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice are all connected: by their common source code. They are different projects and that has been well documented. Sorry. I didn't fall for the trickery. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Disconnected" was a auto-correct typo. What I meant to write was "discontinued".

The article currently describes OpenOffice.org as, "Discontinued ... 25 January 2011; 3 years ago". Is there a source for that? --Tóraí (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and one or two others are acting against the majority view, they just have way too much time at their hands and revert any attempt to change the wording to the correct one. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 to that. --Tóraí (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You should take more responsibility for your spelling and not blame auto-correct.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apache-openoffice-3-4-makes-official-debut-libreoffice-makes-its-case/10915 quotes a statement of fact: We find this announcement particularly interesting as, a year after Oracle shuttered OpenOffice.org, the Incubator (also cited as Apache) now have their release out. And there's http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

However, there are those who see that the Apache projet, which took over, is simply a continuation of the former, but they're as reliable as your auto-correct: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-dev/201301.mbox/%3C450D0047-828A-4C14-9A4D-7C08D56EE004@comcast.net%3E Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Walter.

Both of the sources you link to mention a software product being discontinued. However, the product they described as being discontinued is Oracle Open Office, which is a different product again. Easily confused with OpenOffice.org, it was the now discontinued the commercial version. Read the sources again:

"In 2011, Sun Microsystems was acquired by Oracle. They renamed the proprietary StarOffice office suite to 'Oracle Open Office,' as if they wanted to cause confusion, and then discontinued it." - http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

"Sun acquired the former StarOffice suite (developed by StarDivision in Germany) in 1999. Oracle renamed it Oracle OpenOffice after acquiring Sun but discontinued its development in mid 2010." - http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/apache-openoffice-3-4-makes-official-debut-libreoffice-makes-its-case/10915

Additionally, both sources you cite would seem to suggest that OpenOffice.org is not discontinued. See here:

"As expected, the first version of OpenOffice under new management -- the Apache Software Foundation -- has been released." - http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

"The original OpenOffice.org seemed down and out. In 2011, Oracle gave the OpenOffice.org trademarks and code to the Apache Software Foundation. The project known as OpenOffice today is actually Apache OpenOffice and is being developed under Apache’s umbrella under the Apache license. ... the Apache OpenOffice project isn’t dead. Apache released the beta version of OpenOffice 4.1 in March, 2014." - http://www.howtogeek.com/187663/openoffice-vs.-libreoffice-whats-the-difference-and-which-should-you-use/

This article (also from ZDNet) might cause you to smile: "Perhaps OpenOffice should adopt a new slogan from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 'I'm not dead yet!'"

So, is there a source that supports the claim that OpenOffice.org has been discontinued (as opposed to simply renamed)? --Tóraí (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article, 19 April 2011, states that Oracle drops OpenOffice.org supported by another blog the day before, Open Source Rebels Defeat Oracle, Free OpenOffice. However another source on 15 April stated Oracle Fully Open Sources OpenOffice.org. Then 1 June 2011, Statements on OpenOffice.org Contribution to Apache. So they put the code into open source, but had already dropped support of it. Apache likely stepped in as the sponsor, but Oracle wanted to take some glory. The project was dead and handed over. Your timeline is wrong, but it was probably the autocorrect. I'm done with this discussion.

12 October 2012 Facing Closure, OpenOffice.org Makes a Plea for Survival. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Those April 18/19 April sources seem to jump the gun. One says, "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th." The other says, "Oracle kills its support of OOo project, OOo will continue on as a vendor-neutral branch -- LibreOffice."

Both are based on the April 15 press release where Oracle says, "Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office. ... we believe the OpenOffice.org project would be best managed by an organization focused on serving that broad constituency on a non-commercial basis."

In the end, was that organisation the Document Foundation? In the end, did discontinuing the commercial version of OpenOffice mean the open-source version was discontinued too?

As you indicate, the June 1 press release revealed otherwise. In that, Oracle say, "Donating OpenOffice.org to Apache gives this popular consumer software a mature, open, and well established infrastructure to continue well into the future."

So, is there a source that says this software was disctinued (and not just renamed)? --Tóraí (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC on the topic

Shall we merge this OpenOffice.org and the Apache OpenOffice articles or is there sufficient evidence to indicate that they are separate projects?

A side issue is, is there sufficient size for each article to exist on its own?

Another side issue would be what to do with the current disambiguation page: OpenOffice. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• OpenOffice was transferred by Oracle to Apache, including all copyrights and trademarks. That's a legal fact that has been discussed many times and the majority of discussion participants were always in favor of that as well. The only thing that has closed is the organization called “OpenOffice.org”. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Merge Just focusing on this article, Apache OpenOffice should be merged in. On April 14, 2011 I could go to www.openoffice.org and download OpenOffice.org. Oracle then announced plans to donate the project (code, copyrights, trademarks, domains names, IP, etc.) to a community organisation. That turned out to be the Apache Foundation and on June 1, 2011 the software was renamed to Apache OpenOffice.
  But that's the extent of it. I can still go to www.openoffice.org and download the latest version of the software. If I ask, What is Apache OpenOffice?, that site's FAQs tells me that it is "formerly OpenOffice.org".
  Same software, just renamed. So merge per norm. --Tóraí (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mabdul, Echinacin35, David Gerard, Semsi Paco Virchow, Rezonansowy, Jeffhoy, and Maxl:, @Thumperward, Bhny, Fabrice Ferrer, Palu, LookingGlass, Hug0905, and Steven Greenberg:, @ClareTheSharer: Notifying previous participants to discussion. Apologies if I missed anyone. --Tóraí (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• In any case, the original matter of this thread was the question of whether the software is discontinued (as stated in the article). No matter whether the two article are merged, that statement has been disputed and needs a source. --Tóraí (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: while Apache OpenOffice and OpenOffice.org are indeed the same project from legal standpoint, merging these articles would violate WP:NPOV. As sources mention, many see LibreOffice as a true successor to OpenOffice.org (eg. Chacos, Brad. "Apache OpenOffice hits major 100 million downloads milestone in under two years". PCWorld. Retrieved 19 April 2014.). In my opinion, the most neutral description of the history of OpenOffice.org should stop at the point where it was donated to Apache Foundation and only discuss the split. As to other questions: yes, all these articles are of sufficient size, and articles about current projects will likely grow over time. Nothing should happen to DAB at OpenOffice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: The OpenOffice.org project had a clear, corporate-led character that came to an end once Oracle took control. The two responses to this event -- one resulting in LibreOffice and the other resulting in Apache OpenOffice -- have clearly different identities, policies, code-bases, strategies and licensing to the original project. Since both projects have participants who strongly claim continuity for their project, it seems impossible to avoid endorsing a point of view if a merge takes place. The best compromise seems to be the current set of disambiguation pages leading to both projects, a history article describing StarOffice and OpenOffice.org and articles describing the now-divergent successor projects. As I have also said elsewhere, the formulation "discontinued with active successors" (which is an editorial summary of a complex topic, rather than a directly cited phrase) seems to be the least offensive compromise; all the same, a better formulation is worth seeking if one exists that avoids endorsing one of the points of view. ClareTheSharer (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: There is no continunity between OpenOffice.org and Apache OpenOffice with regard to license, team/contributors, stewards and governance. Apache OpenOffice has nothing more to do beyond the similar name with OpenOffice.org than e.g. NeoOffice or LibreOffice. If anything should be merged at all it would be StarOffice and OpenOffice.org as the now defunct historic predecessors of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.207.137 (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: The StarOffice article suggests a precedent. Software does not cease to exist when development is discontinued or when a new version is released. Apache currently owns the name "OpenOffice", and that does mean that future releases will be in Apache OpenOffice, but the legal transfer of the name doesn't apply to old versions. That is, the OpenOffice.org article should continue to exist as a separate article, since StarOffice still exists despite having been superseded. Roches (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merge: Everything is different about the projects. All three articles are coherent and individual writeups of their history; the OOo and AOO articles in fact split really neatly, since everything is different about the two projects, and a merge would make a bad article that read like something in need of splitting (as it did before the split). Merge would endorse a highly-disputed POV (with the dispute strongly referenced in this very article), per ClareTheSharer. Roches' argument per StarOffice is also strong. Leave the disambig alone too, per Czarkoff. As I noted a few months ago, Santa Cruz Operation, Caldera (company) and SCO Group are separate articles despite 100% corporate continuity from second to third and claimed continuity by third from first. Because the separate articles are better and clearer - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Relevant to note also that Tóraí's previous proposal re: the redirect was already resoundingly rejected in January - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • And just to clarify: the word "merge" didn't appear anywhere in this thread before Walter Görlitz called this RfC. I support a merge (or rather I believe the article shouldn't have been split) but this RfC isn't a proposal of mine. --Tóraí (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose merge It is my understanding that the legal entity OpenOffice.org (trademark and associated marks) was closed by Oracle and no longer exists in any active capacity. Apache OpenOffice was then formed by the absorption of IBM Lotus Symphony, so the Apache OO codebase is of multiple descent, i.e. a merger with the IBM Lotus Symphony article would compete on equal grounds, but we can't do both. In addition, LibreOffice is at least as eligible a successor to OO.o as Apache OpenOffice - again, we can't merge both in that direction either. So to avoid this becoming a complete mess, they all MUST remain separate. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Leaning toward oppose Some pretty good arguments are made above noting the conceptual and practical separation of the two subjects, so it seems reasonable we should have two articles. I'll note that it isn't necessarily always the case that largely distinct projects which are carried on by another organization are inappropriate to merge. In this instance it could be feasible to have one article on "OpenOffice" which covers LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and NeoOffice in sections. However there's no policy which requires us to do so. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@Czarkoff: Thanks for a sensible responsible. The view that LibreOffice is the "true" successor is a legitimate view but we also have to balance WP:WEIGHT and other POVs. Even if Apache OpenOffice and this article aren't (re)merged, the current state of this article (e.g. describing OpenOffice.org as "discontinued") is fatally lacking in NPOV from the other direction.

If the two articles are kept apart, as now, then we have a NPOV paradox: If OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" then we violate NPOV by falling on the side that holds that Apache OpenOffice is not OpenOffice.org. If say it is not "discontinued" then what is its current release: Apache OpenOffice or LibreOffice?

Maybe a solution is to have a broad concept article here (or a OpenOffice) that takes a whole-world view of OpenOffice, including forks and lineages, in the same way that we might have an article on something like Linux. Then we can deal with Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice (and NeoOffice and all others) separately, just like we might with Debian, Fedora, etc., without saying either that OpenOffice.org is discontinued or that Apache OpenOffice is its one true successor. --Tóraí (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí: please stop harassing those who disagree with you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's called discussion, Walter, and this is a talk page. We currently don't have a consensus. Through discussion we might arrive at a consensus. --Tóraí (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's an RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Tóraí: I don't suggest to merge this article in LibreOffice or vice versa, I suggest to maintain neutrality – prefer neither of contenders, provided that one inhereted name and SVC, while another inherited community and most developers of OpenOffice.org. Merging Apache OpenOffice into this article violates NPOV, because such merge would land undue weight on AOO – although AOO's claim is more prominent, it is not that prominent. Saying that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" is plain wrong either; it should be marked as "superceded" by both Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice projects instead. P.S.: this article already serves the role of broad concept article. We are not facing a situation when some urgent fix is required (apart from "discontinued" state in infobox). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for a thoughtful response, czarkoff. I appreciate it. Discontent with the angle the article has taken has been simmering for months. So, no - no urgent action is needed.

The "discontinued" element is a very obvious POV statement but the perspective that lies behind it is pervasive throughout the article (e.g. "OpenOffice.org (OOo), commonly known as OpenOffice, was an open-source office suite." Was? Has it not just been renamed?)

You're right that the article as it stands is close to a broad-concept article. And would be a good jumping off point. But that pervasive POV would need to be attended to and the article would have to begin clearly from the position of a broad concept (e.g. "The OpenOffice open-source productivity suite was first released by Sun Microsystem in 2000. It continues today as two major branches, Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice, as well as numerous forks.") --Tóraí (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article should describe the period of this progam's history starting with its forking from StarOffice and ending with its split into Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice, making clear that both events are only fragments of a general timescale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

...and ending with its split into Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice... - What I would imagine as a broad concept article (and this is a new thought I'm putting out there) is that this article wouldn't stop there. Let it continue past the point of the schism and take a netural line - or make no comment - on which branch is the one true "OpenOffice".

It more or less does that already, except that it begins from the primise that this article is about a discrete item of software, rather than the code base, history and community effort (e.g. Debian vs. Linux). Since that code base, history and community effort is still living (in Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice) so the article would continue to track past the date of the schism.

If you are interested, I can do up a subpage with the sort of tweaks that would angle the article more in that direction? --Tóraí (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just make changes to the article and post a diff here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

czarkoff, sorry for no getting back. Was very busy IRL. Will read through the comments above and make a stab at a proposal for a broad topic-style direction. --Tóraí (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be a self-imposed topic ban for you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 - repeated proposals against consensus in multiple venues, clear evidence (already noted) of not understanding the topic area or its jargon - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The majority view (and legally backed fact) has always been that ownership of OpenOffice has been transferred from Oracle to Apache and therefore OO is not discontinued software with two legitimate successors (just that 4.0 is a new major version of the same software, released under a new owner). So don't act as if you were the guardian of consensus here. You're not and you have always worked against the majority, reverting everything that does not fit in your personal worldview.

Let's be clear: The edits claiming that OpenOffice.org was ended and that Apache OpenOffice was a fork are not the consensual starting point here. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

However, given the string of "oppose merge" above, it's clearly the consensus right now that the articles are better separated - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That was clear last February. This thread was on the issue of the statement in the article that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued". Then Walter opened an RfC on whether Apache OpenOffice should be merged in here. Before then, the last person to write the word "merge" on this page was you, on 3 February 2014. --Tóraí (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the reason. There were comments that it has been discontinued. And now we have a second consensus that the products are separate and this has been discontinued. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I replied below. --Tóraí (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

+1 The sense of ownership and battleground mentality from David and Walter is palpable. Their contributions here make the article and talk page a very hostile environment for anyone with a view that does not accord with theirs. I've a thick skin but the very personal nature of their hostility - being directed not just at removing countervailing views but also countervailing editors - is insidious to positive collaboration over this article. --Tóraí (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

czarkoff, here you go. I only reworked the introduction because it is bound to be reverted but this is the kind of approach I mean. --Tóraí (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You should have self-reverted as the proposal that it is (and particularly given consensus above is strongly against your proposals) - I've reverted it in the meantime. (I note your sample is sloppy and rather ungrammatical) - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Typical… Once again you claim authority over this topic… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

He has the right to be bold. We have the right to revert. We should then discuss. I would like to discuss a topic ban for Tóraí. Any seconders? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

David, I initially proposed to do up a subpage as example. Dmitrij suggested I do it in on the page itself. Doing so was useful to the extent that KAMiKAZOW|'s edit shows that there is support for a direction like it.

"...and particularly given consensus above is strongly against your proposal..." What proposal? There was an RfC above about something no-one was proposing (i.e. to merge the two articles). How about we pull our heads out of the trenches for long enough to recognise what others are raising issue with? As it is, there seems to be a large extent to which some people here are warring with shadows.

The RfC did produced some useful comments, however. For example:

• "...a better formulation is worth seeking if one exists that avoids endorsing one of the points of view..." - ClareTheSharer
• "Saying that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" is plain wrong ..." - Czarkoff
• "If anything should be merged at all it would be StarOffice and OpenOffice.org as the now defunct historic predecessors of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and others." - 46.59.207.137

Even you, yourself, say the article is subject to a "a highly-disputed POV". Currently, we do not walk the line of NPOV. We fall very heavily on one side of that POV dispute (i.e. "discontinued"). That POV was challenged by the original two posters to this thread and others before them. --Tóraí (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This primarily demonstrates quote mining rather than working with others. I'm afraid it comes across as tendentious and showing little understanding of the points of the people you are quoting - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Torai lies here --- he works for IBM in Ireland. This is why he has done all the edits to Openoffice to merge it with Apache Openoffice an IBM project. This is commercial posting and abuse of administrator powers --- see how he threatens other users on Talk:OpenOffice.org. 85.255.234.10 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is true at all, this is WP:OUTING. Anyway, whatever reasons drive Tóraí, discussions on Misplaced Pages are driven by worth of arguments, so there is no need to worry – if his arguments won't convince other editors, he will fail in this attempt; otherwise that'll be community's decision to merge these articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it OUTING or WP:COI?

He doesn't want the articles merged, he wants the claim that the original projected ended and that the Apache project is not a new project but rather a continuation of this one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume for a second that he is a COI editor. And so what? How does this affect his arguments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. First off, I don't work for IBM. And I never have. Second, instead of being hung up on what motivates others, as Czarkoff notes, we should be examining the merits of (source based) arguments, including our own arguments.

From my experience, the interaction on this page is unfortunately combative and has little to no sense of collaboration or joint purpose (unless two editors are approaching an issue from the same perspective).

We should be trying to arrive at consensus. Instead, I get a sense that some editors here are more motivated to hold a line and drive out (or disregard or ignore) opposing views, no matter how reasonable or well argued. --Tóraí (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's not flood this discussion. There are WP:COIN and WP:AN/I for those who believe that administrative intervention is required. Every off-topic paragraph, and specifically thread like this, only makes the discussion more verbose. I boldly end this branch right here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Interpretation of RfC

This thread was on the issue of the statement in the article that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued". Then Walter opened an RfC on whether Apache OpenOffice should be merged in here. --Tóraí (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the reason. There were comments that it has been discontinued. And now we have a second consensus that the products are separate and this has been discontinued. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Discontinued"

The only contributors to mention the word "discontinued" were myself, Czarkoff, ClareTheSharer, and Roches. Myself and Czarkoff agreed that to described it as discontinued is wrong. Clare suggests a different formulation ("discontinued with active successors" or "a better formulation"). And Roches said that "future releases will be in Apache OpenOffice" (so not discontinued?).

In any case, an RfC is no way to avoid fundamental policy, such as Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. The statement that OpenOffice.org is "discontinued" is currently unsupported and may be removed at any time.

Continuity of projects

Most respondent talked about continuity (or not) between the projects. Of these, the majority (ClareTheSharer, 46.59.207.137, David Gerard, Protonk) saw no continuity between them. Czarkoff saw it as more nuanced ("same project from legal standpoint" but "many see LibreOffice as a true successor"). KAMiKAZOW and myself, didn't see it as meaningful to subject matter.

That raises a question: What is the article about: A project? A software suite? (Or a particular version of a software suite?)

Broad concept / historical article

Another notable theme was the idea of this article being reinvented as a broad concept / historical article. I discussed this with Czarkoff. This theme was also raised by Clare, 46.59.207.137, and Protonk (so a majority of respondents in total). For example:

• "The best compromise seems to be ... a history article describing StarOffice and OpenOffice.org and articles describing the now-divergent successor projects." - Clare

• "If anything should be merged at all it would be StarOffice and OpenOffice.org as the now defunct historic predecessors of Apache OpenOffice, LibreOffice and others." - 46.59.207.137

• "In this instance it could be feasible to have one article on "OpenOffice" which covers LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and NeoOffice in sections." - Protonk

I personally think that would be a useful approach to explore. It would enable us to avoid having to fall on one-side-or-the-other of the apparent POV divide.

I think it would be worth exploring but I wonder if there's sufficient willingness to do so from regular contributors here?

--Tóraí (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara: --Tóraí (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I noted above, you are quotemining from the actual discussion. Your repeated proposals have no more consensus than they've had any time this year - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What "repeated proposals"? I proposed a merge in October last year. You were the only respondent then. There was a little more traffic to this talk page afterwards so in January I raised the question again by way of discussion. In January also, I separately proposed that OpenOffice be redirected to Apache OpenOffice.

In the discussion that ensued on this article, three out of five participants (myself, Palu and KAMiKAZOW) expressed dissatisfaction with this article (beyond the question of a merger). On Talk:OpenOffice there was a clear consensus to keep that as a dab page.

Now, how does one merger proposal and a requested move on a different page add up to "repeated proposals" here?

On the other hand, we still have dissatisfaction with this article (particularly around WP:V and WP:NPOV). Rather than addressing those for what they are, you are still showing a battlefield mentality and a sense of ownership over this article. So, why won't you take yourself out of your trench and work with others so that we can reach a consensus position here? --Tóraí (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

--Tóraí (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Second RfC, this time on NPOV

Does this article present its information in a neutral way or is there an issue related to promoting a specific POV? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)