On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton >> <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >>> I started looking through this. There probably needs to be a flag, >>> because there are inappropriate sources and this is an opinion >>> piece in the ways Rob has noticed. > > Agreed. My thanks to you and Rob. How very unpleasant. > >>> >>> While browsing, >>> >>> In the prelude, the Apache License is described as among the weak >>> copyleft licenses. It is not, and weak copyleft is not allowed in >>> Apache source code either. (LGPL is the archetypical weak >>> copyleft.) The well-known term is "reciprocal," and ALv2 is part >>> of the same family as the modern BSD, the MIT license, etc. >>> >>> The sidebar on license is a muddle and there probably needs to be a >>> bright line between OpenOffice.org as delivered prior to the >>> contribution to Apache and Apache OpenOffice. I see this is >>> discussed on the Talk:OpenOffice page. Also, the chronological >>> information is a jumble throughout the article. >>> >>> I don't believe the statement about enterprise desktop penetration >>> either. >>> >>> If simple events were reported without supposing reasons for them >>> (i.e., only Oracle knows what led to the SGA to Apache, but the >>> fact that it happened is incontrovertible), this article would be >>> much cleaner. That's the case for numerous statements which should >>> be reduced to the essential facts and not invented reasons. I >>> suppose it is fair to say where there was controversy, but there >>> are too many unsupported conclusions. >>> >>> I agree that the "In June 2011 ..." paragraph is garbage. >>> >>> The Governance thing is also strange. Was an "OpenOffice >>> Foundation" ever established? > > No. > > There were several nonprofit funding organizations acting as banks for > OpenOffice.org, and these had local "foundation" status, in at least one > instance (Germany), but they were not *the* "OpenOffice Foundation" (let > alone the OpenOffice.org Foundation). That never existed, though it was > discussed. However, there was no compelling point, given the nature of > the project and the uncertain benefits a foundation would provide. (What > a foundation in this case would do seems vague but most people would > probably imagine it providing not just funds and the ability to obtain > them but also code governance, plus marketing resources.) > > >>> >>> After all that introductory strangeness, there is a great deal of >>> technical detail. Under "Development" the Security section is >>> simply strange. (LibreOffice has never bundled Java, AFAIK.) The >>> full functionality requirement is not explained but it is >>> apparently from a phrase in the AOO install instructions. That >>> should be remedied if it is not about OpenOffice functionality but >>> a dependency for extensions and database providers. >>> >>> The Talk:OpenOffice page is interesting. >>> >>> The article requires considerable curation to be in >>> Wikipedia-acceptable encyclopedic form. >>> >>> David Gerard seems to be well-intended in his presence on the >>> Talk:OpenOffice page, despite his excessive speculation and >>> prognostication on the main page. I am not certain that is all his >>> doing. >>> >> >> I recommend using Wikiblame to find the editor who entered the >> portions you have concerns with: >> >> http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php >> >> I did a spot check and the FUD from over the holidays came from >> Gerard. >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob > > For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice > is something we can do. >
So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV? His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks the facts, but has an axe to grind: https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article? -Rob > thanks > Louis >> >>> Contributions from IBM employees are significant, IBMers being the >>> largest contingent of paid developers. But the article overstates >>> that, as if everything else is miniscule. >>> >>> All of the tipping toward LibreOffice is also meaningless and >>> doesn't belong in this article anyhow. His tweeting that he's like >>> more eyes on the article seems benign to me. I don't see "bragging" >>> and certainly not about FUD. >>> >>> I do agree that there is far too much information about >>> LibreOffice, since LibreOffice has its own article. Many of the >>> declarations about that and how it came about, who has what >>> developers, etc., is not needed in this article. The OpenOffice >>> page is not appropriate for LibreOffice posturing/FUD. >>> >>> The OpenOffice article probably needs one of those notices that it >>> is not up to standard, etc. >>> >>> - Dennis >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Rob Weir >>> [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 15:47 >>> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: In case you missed it: The >>> OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed over the holidays >>> >>> 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: >>> >>> [ ... ] >>> >>> 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 >>> > > > -- > Louis Suárez-Potts > Apache OpenOffice PMC > In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers > @luispo
