I noticed David Gerard bragging about this on Twitter to Roy Schestowitz: https://twitter.com/davidgerard/status/293102313751584768
Take a look at the lovely new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice Some choice bits of distortion: "In June 2011, Oracle contributed the code and trademarks to the Apache Software Foundation, unilaterally relicensing all contributions under the Apache License, at the suggestion of IBM (to whom Oracle had contractual obligations concerning the code). Most development is now done by IBM employees. On 18 October 2012 Apache OpenOffice graduated from the Apache Incubator." Nice conspiracy theory slipped in their by Gerard, eh? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenOffice&diff=prev&oldid=529910312) or "With the donation to Apache, development slowed while the foundation moved the codebase and infrastructure to its servers. Apache OpenOffice 3.4 was released on 8 May 2012. The work done in the thirteen months since the OpenOffice.org 3.4 beta was mainly license changes, removing or replacing as much code, including fonts, under licenses unacceptable to Apache as possible. Language support was considerably reduced, to 15 languages from a 2009 peak of over 110. Java is no longer bundled with the installer. 3.4.1, released 23 August 2012, added five more languages." Gerard is also pushing for the page to declare LO as the successor to OpenOffice: "LO as successor Per the naming discussion above - AOO has the trademark, but that's about all. There's about ten press sources in the article already to support a statement that OOo was succeeded by LO, and that AOO is a rump, a moribund shell; and only IBM sources seriously pretending AOO is a live project - as far as I can see looking through AOO commits, IBM hasn't even committed the Symphony code and it's supposed to come out in February. We'll see with AOO 4.0, but if it looks anything like Symphony (which I've used at work, and it's horrible), that will be the day old OOo users notice something has gone terribly wrong and it'll be appropriate to make this article all about OpenOffice.org and make Apache OpenOffice a separate article - David Gerard (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OpenOffice#Badly_in_need_of_copyediting_and_sensible_revision These are some of the same misstatements as in the Lwn.net article coming out later this week, btw. Is that what they are stooping to now? Are these the words of a neutral Wikipedia editor? Is that how they work? It seems rather odd to me for a notable detractor of Apache OpenOffice to have free hand in a revisionist rewrite of this Wikipedia page. Quite odd. I'm disappointed, but not surprised. -Rob
