As we approach the 4th anniversary of the LibreOffice project in just a few days, an old topic has resurfaced online: Apache OpenOffice and LibreOffice should merge . I'd like to share my thoughts on this, though I don't think it's important, especially since the LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice developers aren't actually considering a merger. Before I begin, let me remind everyone that what follows is my personal opinion, not that of the Document Foundation, the Democratic Party, or my administration. I am, obviously, biased in my judgment; I am even a party involved. But I am also relatively well-informed on these matters, and I reckon you'll want to read this post by Leif Lodahl as well to provide context for my comments. Let me clarify first that merging the two projects is an inherently political concept that encompasses several questions. Among them are the following:
1. How would we meet?
When the LibreOffice project was announced, the project asked Oracle to join in and transfer ownership of the brand to the new project. It did not work well. Oracle waited a long time before deciding to license the brand to the Apache Software Foundation, along with the code from OpenOffice.org. There is an important point here: Oracle licensed those assets.
He did not give them or sell them to ASF. The ability to drop the "OpenOffice" brand would be somewhat uncertain from the start, and LibreOffice would be the brand used. Even if that's not the case, how would it work? Would we release the same software under two brands? Two different releases under two different names?
2. What would we be gathering?
This is where the licensing part comes in: choosing licenses is perhaps one of the biggest technical hurdles to a reunification. On the one hand, the LibreOffice code base can, thanks to its licenses (LGPL and MPL), accept patches licensed under the Apache license, but the opposite is more difficult (although perhaps not absolutely impossible). This restricted flow of code would be decisive, in the scenario of a reunification, because it would lead to stop the licensing of any new patch under the Apache license while we leave the current licensing scheme of the Document Foundation intact. My guess is that the Apache Software Foundation is not going to allow that to happen.
3. Where would we meet?
In other words: In which repository? Where? Would we use the ASF's SVN repository or the Document Foundation's own infrastructure with Git as the system of choice for version control? Perhaps a third party (existing or created ad-hoc) would be another option.
4. Who?
Who would be the decisive parties is another sensitive question. On the one hand, the Document Foundation would be one of the parties. Depending on the kind of reunification (below), some areas of discussion would not be covered in the bylaws of the Document Foundation, which complicates the matter. Besides the Document Foundation and the Apache Software Foundation, Oracle would probably be at least one other party involved; and obviously, IBM. Having said that, it is not entirely clear what the voice of the community would be on the matter: then, the Document Foundation would be the only entity that would directly represent its members, individual contributors to the LibreOffice project. ASF does the same, but Apache OpenOffice is only a small fraction of the entire ASF community.
5. What kind of reunification would we like?
Beyond the specific questions asked above, this question has broader implications, because it is the one that points to the actual reason and meaning of a hypothetical unification of two projects. Do we want a mix of equal parts in a new structure? Is that possible? I have highlighted a few points above that suggest that this scenario would be technically difficult. Do we want LibreOffice to be founded on ASF and AOO? Obviously not me, but the question has been asked before. Why would we do it? It's possible? The licensing differences suggest that specific LibreOffice contributions would need to be scrapped. It would end up meaning that LibreOffice would dissolve into AOO and disappear with all the work done for nothing, and given the difference in size between the two projects it would be like an elephant trying to get through a lock. Do we want AOO to be founded on LibreOffice? With regard to licenses it would be possible. Would the ASF want that? I do not know. The Document Foundation I think can accommodate. We have seen waves of mass migration before. We can of course join the AOO team. Basically, the contributors to each project would be the judges voting with their feet. And that is something that neither the Document Foundation, nor Apache, nor Oracle nor IBM can control.
6. What would we achieve?
When members of the old OpenOffice.org project used to discuss the future of the project with the folks at Sun Microsystems, they often heard the same question: "Tell us why would a foundation for OpenOffice.org help fix the project's problems?" Invariably, any point made in favor of a foundation was cast aside, bringing up any other solution that did not involve the existence of an independent foundation. It used to perfectly illustrate the difference between actual results and predicted results based on a rational argument: the two are not necessarily complementary. With a strange twist of irony, I must now ask the same question: "Why would reunification help fix the problems of any of the projects?" I'll quickly list the areas of concern and issues that are often cited as reasons for bringing the two office suites together:
- common brand / higher brand equity
- everyone can contribute to the same codebase (yeaah!)
- there is no point in having two similar office suites
- no more interoperability issues
Higher brand equity used to be a very good argument, perhaps the best one, in 2010 and 2011. I started this post by noting that the founders of the LibreOffice project have actively sought Oracle's consent to use OpenOffice for the new project. Now, we are just hours away from the fourth anniversary of the LibreOffice project. The project is going well. There is still much to do, but it has exceeded what many used to imagine was possible. Although the LibreOffice brand started from scratch in 2010 and 2011, things changed. Obviously, OpenOffice has a better known brand, since it takes advantage of the 10 years of existence of its old project; I'm sorry to say that Apache OpenOffice has little credit for this achievement other than its existence. But LibreOffice as a brand is established and its brand equity is growing a lot everywhere. Destroying any of these brands would carry some painful consequences. Do we really want this? Does anyone have a feasible and sustainable plan for a brand transition? I haven't heard any of that.
The fact that a common project could contribute to the same code base, thus making it a "better and stronger" office suite is debatable. LibreOffice took what it wanted from Apache OpenOffice through the license specifications of both suites; but in pure contributions, Apache OpenOffice has very little to offer LibreOffice. Also, the two teams of contributors are so different in size that the addition of AOO developers would not be very significant to LibreOffice whereas if it were the opposite, things would be interesting. However, it would mean that again we intend to play with taxpayers as if we were measuring regiments. Community members come and go as they please, and reunification is not something we are all necessarily looking for.
There is certainly little value in having two similar office suites, although it is a fundamental expression of software freedom, and that alone should suffice. We also have like 150 Linux distributions and if we look around and apply that way of thinking, we will want to mix with Calligra, Abiword and Gnumeric. That doesn't make any sense either. Remember, however, that neither AOO nor LibreOffice seek to be "similar," and despite popular perception, they are growing in very different ways each quarter. The same can be said for Calligra, a project that is developed with a very different code base. In short, clones may not make much sense, but the choice is a good one especially if the choice involves real differences. Now there are real differences between AOO and LibreOffice, in terms of features, file format support, in terms of ecosystem and engineering processes as well. The choice between those two suites becomes clearer as time passes. We should not forget that when we imagine a competition between free and proprietary software we are not implying that there should be only one option on each side.
Last but not least, interoperability issues have been cited by various knowledgeable parties as a problem and are basically an obstacle to the adoption of Open Standards like ODF. Although it is a complex problem, it is also not a blindingly critical problem, in the sense that the problems that can be encountered tend to arise in specific settings. These usually involve a user base using OpenOffice.org or AOO along with LibreOffice and documents that have already been migrated to ODF. Increasing differences in implementations invariably lead to visual differences in document presentations (although there is no data loss) and thus generate frustration and discomfort for users. The only possible solution to those hurdles (aside from a careful and laborious migration expert carrying the ball) is to have AOO and LibreOffice cooperating on specific interoperability issues. But make no mistake: anyone using Microsoft Office or Calligra with ODF documents would basically create their own incompatibilities. The current scope of the problem is therefore broader and has been expected for several years; it's not just a mere AOO-LibreOffice problem. A mix would solve this in the long run, but still force some users to abandon one implementation for another.
Before ending this long post, let me point out that when everything has been said and done on this topic, it all comes down to the current will and goals of the parties involved. It may seem unpleasant to me to point it out, but to this day I still haven't found a real reason why Apache OpenOffice even exists. It does not mean that you consider the project members as idiots or incompetent, quite the opposite. But if we talk about reunification, the question arises as to why LibreOffice and the Document Foundation were created. We do not know exactly why Apache OpenOffice was created, beyond being a corporate will (from Oracle) to license an asset to a third party (Apache). So if the two projects were to meet, one should pay close attention to the true meaning of this movement and listen to the current contributors to the projects. When software freedom is involved there is no point avoiding the community.