My point of view on the history of the LibreOffice project

italovignoli · November 10, 2024, 9:40pm

DISCLAIMER: All the opinions expressed are Italo Vignoli’s personal ones, matured from observation – both direct and indirect, but always very careful – of all the events and the behaviour of individuals, and filtered through the experience I have developed outside the project, between 1981 and today, first as a manager and then as an entrepreneur and manager.

Talking to several members of the LibreOffice project, both before and during the conference, I realized how little is known about the history of the project, especially its genesis and evolution in the early years, from 2010 to 2014. It was during this period that the fork was born and the foundations of the project were laid.

To understand those years and the activities of the founding group a little better, there are a couple of research papers published by two researchers from the University of Skövde in Sweden – Jonas Gamalielsson and Berndt Lundell – in 2012 and 2014. In 2016, I published a post on the TDF blog with links to the two research papers, links that are still valid and allow free downloads of the papers in PDF format: Advent Resource #16: Two Academic Research about LibreOffice - The Document Foundation Blog.

In addition, at the end of 2014 I wrote a document for the Italian community in which I explained my view of the facts, because the Italian OpenOffice.org community was the only one that was almost entirely in favour of Apache OpenOffice, i.e. in favour of Oracle, IBM and the Apache Foundation. The document is still valid, so I have made some changes and removed some specific references to the Italian situation to make it more usable: https://www.vignoli.org/tdf-twoprojects2024.pdf.

These documents help to understand the reality of those years and why the focus of the board was completely different from what it is today: at that time we had to think about the survival of the project, because we were in the crosshairs of Microsoft and IBM, and not only that, because many free and open source software “supporters” were using the Apache Foundation’s screen to take sides against LibreOffice.

There is no point in naming these people today, because they have been defeated by history, but it is still worth remembering that their names are indelibly etched in my memory, which fortunately remains very good despite my age. What they did will never be forgotten, let alone forgiven.

It is probable that the pressure to which the founders of the project, the members of the Board of Directors and the group of the most active volunteers were subjected during those years was the cause of some decisions – taken in good faith – which, years later, proved to be incompatible with the management of a non-profit foundation, because they amounted to an “excess of power of representation”.

I am referring in particular to the first episodes of free use of the LibreOffice trademark (which, to be clear, are not those related to the shops) and the procurement policy based on tenders (with company representatives abstaining). At the time, it seemed normal to everyone to deal with them without much formality, using common sense.

If, at that time, we had sought the opinion of a lawyer to define the rules, slowing down the processes but ensuring compliance with the conditions of the law, especially in relation to the status of a non-profit foundation, we probably would not have a series of unresolved problems today and we would not be in the position of having to take difficult and complex decisions to resolve them.

The following years, from 2014 onwards, were determined partly by the history of the first four years and partly by the internal relations within the Board of Directors, where there was a gradual deterioration in relations until the real catastrophe of the two terms of office, from 2020 to 2022 and from 2022 to 2024.

Understanding how this situation came about is difficult even for those who have been deeply involved in the project from the beginning, and perhaps impossible for those who have approached it in recent years. Certainly, watching from the outside has been a tiring exercise, not least because it was clear that the aim was not the good of the foundation, but polemics, sterile and an end in itself.

For four years we witnessed the tip of the iceberg of a wall-to-wall confrontation, because most of the discussions took place in private.

On the one hand, there was an attempt to steer the management of the project in a direction different from that inspired by the foundation’s statutes, and on the other, to maintain privileged positions that were not born as such, but which the lawyers’ opinions had clearly indicated were incompatible with non-profit status. An assessment that was unfortunately confirmed by the 2023 audit.

On the other hand, the attempt to create a climate of tension that made any kind of constructive discussion difficult, with negative repercussions for the project. A climate of tension that was completely unnecessary, because it led to an escalation of confrontation rather than a solution to the problems.

Today, we are faced with the need to quickly solve problems that we have inherited and that have only worsened over the years due to the wall-to-wall effect. Solutions that may have been relatively easy in 2020 are now difficult because of the climate of incommunicability of recent years and its impact on people.

NOTE: Whoever insists – commenting other posts – on explaining to me things that I have understood perfectly well and have tried to explain in a clear and accessible way, with his own biased truth, only confirms my negative opinions about his work in the Board, which I have expressed and repeated several times (opinions which, I repeat, to avoid misunderstandings, are personal and extremely solid). Therefore, I will not respond to any of such “explanations”.

floeff · November 11, 2024, 9:16am

Thanks for linking my blogpost explaining what a board role is about, which I think still has relevance to these days and was actually written seven months before TDF was legally established. On the social side of things, in 2017 I wrote a piece called “Ten thoughts on community leadership” which I think is worth a read too, as it is obviously also based on the by-then experiences at TDF. I regularly give this as presentation on events and in podcasts, in an abbreviated form it was also printed e.g. at opensource.com. Feedback is usually very positive, so I hope it inspires people here too.

And for those curious about the spirit of the first months, I’ve found a copy of the LibreOffice Conference 2012 Opening Speech - it’s sad to see where we moved from there.

My memory on some items is different, in particular on abstentions of people, and - let me say it diplomatically - not considering e.g. my request to get sound advice (I remember being shouted at in front of a full audience for this). But these were events where you were not present, so as you say, it is not trivial to get a full picture.

EyalRozenberg · November 19, 2024, 12:03am

Thank you, Italo, for this - and additional - distillations of historical perspective. It is quite helpful for newer trustees such as myself, both regarding the bare facts and some of the attitudes and motivations.

A few questions and comments:

Weren’t the people who drafted the statutes mostly the same people who served on the first two or three BoDs?

Do you mean the four years since 2020, or an earlier four?

I wonder whether its the solutions which are difficult, or the changing of the climate that is making it difficult for people / companies to accept them. I mean, the problems pointed out in the audit do not seem intractable; and IIANM, it is not as though the potential changes to tendering procedures or app-store revenue distribution is what will make-or-break Collabora and Allotropia.

Why did the community not split between people switching to Apache OO and those switching to LibreOffice? Was the user community supportive of LibreOffice right from the get-go, with “everyone” who is active getting on-board?

How did the transfer of the OOo source code ownership from Oracle to ASF give IBM the permissive license? Didn’t it have it before, and lost it for all OOo contributions starting with the ownership transfer? And - how would that “sword of Damocles” work? How could they convert any of OOo from FOSS to proprietary? I understand that they could threaten withholding the contributions in Symphony from being ported/transferred into OOo; is that what you meant? But - IBM had that sword before the transfer to ASF.

italovignoli · November 20, 2024, 10:52pm

A few questions and comments:

Weren’t the people who drafted the statutes mostly the same people who served on the first two or three BoDs?

We are talking about the last three BoDs. In 2019, at the Conference in Almeria, there was a proposal to create a parallel organization to TDF - with independent governance - to manage the release of apps for online stores. At least, this was the official motivation, although I think there were other objectives. It is a perfect example of the issue of solving problems by creating different problems, which has affected TDF (as many other organizations which miss an experienced management).

I miss many details to provide an informed opinion, but judging from outside it was a poorly thought solution. It was mainly supported by ecosystem companies, and this is definitely one of the reasons of the frictions that have developed over the following years, from 2020 to 2024.

Do you mean the four years since 2020, or an earlier four?

The four years since 2020.

I wonder whether its the solutions which are difficult, or the changing of the climate that is making it difficult for people / companies to accept them. I mean, the problems pointed out in the audit do not seem intractable; and IIANM, it is not as though the potential changes to tendering procedures or app-store revenue distribution is what will make-or-break Collabora and Allotropia.

The solutions are difficult, also because of the climate. Today, every word by every individual is interpreted in the worst possible way, as if we are all looking at destroying each other. Of course, none of the changes will either make rich or break Collabora and allotropia, but every change is seen as a potential damage for one of the parties (which is just plain stupid).

Why did the community not split between people switching to Apache OO and those switching to LibreOffice? Was the user community supportive of LibreOffice right from the get-go, with “everyone” who is active getting on-board?

Most of the community followed the LibreOffice project because it was immediately clear that this was the real community project, while Apache OpenOffice was just a corporate project supported by IBM and not hostile to Microsoft.

Only a few opportunistic people who thought - not knowing IBM - that IBM was a guarantee (mostly Italians), and the people from OpenOffice who were not accepted by the LibreOffice project as they were known for their toxic behaviour switched to Apache OpenOffice.

How did the transfer of the OOo source code ownership from Oracle to ASF give IBM the permissive license? Didn’t it have it before, and lost it for all OOo contributions starting with the ownership transfer? And - how would that “sword of Damocles” work? How could they convert any of OOo from FOSS to proprietary? I understand that they could threaten withholding the contributions in Symphony from being ported/transferred into OOo; is that what you meant? But - IBM had that sword before the transfer to ASF.

OpenOffice was entirely relicensed, so the copyleft clauses of LGPL were completely lost. Apache License is permissive, and one of the “permissions” is that you can change the license, which means that IBM could abandon Apache OpenOffice and keep only Symphony alive, although at the end they were forced to donate the Symphony source code in order to have something new to announce at Apache OpenOffice.

thb · November 21, 2024, 2:19am

Hi Italo, all,

Not going to revisit this topic at length (as you said, it caused quite some friction - though I still believe the core of the idea was sound, and not too different from the MoFo / MoCo separation).

But just to say that interestingly, on that topic there was broadly no disagreement between ecosystem company board members and the rest - the initial vote was unanimous (with one abstention). One could say it predated the deeply factional times, but as you say might have been one of the reasons to create them.

floeff · November 21, 2024, 10:37am

In 2019, at the Conference in Almeria, there was a proposal to create a parallel organization to TDF - with independent governance - to manage the release of apps for online stores.

One problem about this is that it was presented to the community quite by surprise. If you look back at the conversation in this forum and elsewhere, there were quite a few community members irritated.

At least, this was the official motivation, although I think there were other objectives.

I share your feeling. I remember many interesting things from the discussion, but what is documented in public is that there were ideas around buying bugs on BugZilla and working with approved implementors. The entity should have been granted the exclusive use of “LibreOffice” in app stores.

It was mainly supported by ecosystem companies, and this is definitely one of the reasons of the frictions that have developed over the following years, from 2020 to 2024.

We had the first frictions starting when the second board was in charge, but around 2020 things clearly got significantly worse.

Of course, none of the changes will either make rich or break Collabora and allotropia, but every change is seen as a potential damage for one of the parties (which is just plain stupid).

The frustrating thing is to get accused by some people up to this day, when many of us have been working for years now to fix issues created by previous boards. That is the exact opposite of damaging.

It feels a bit like someone playing with fire in their house, and then complaining with the firemen that the water to extinguish damages the walls… it gets even worse when the firemen warned before but were, diplomatically spoken, criticized for that.

PaoloVecchi · November 21, 2024, 10:43am

I would be more inclined to define it as an event that pushed several members of the new board to re-evaluate quite a few things which clashed with members that had other ideas on what TDF should be and do.
The fact that some of these debates were public is, IMHO, a good thing even if it gave the wrong impression that these frictions started in 2020.

I would also not put the last 2 terms in the same basket as in these boards there were completely different dynamics and interests at play.

The 2020-2022 term, in my opinion, brought clarifications on some projects and some positive outcomes, we could have done more and better but there were still divergent opinions on what TDF should be and do.

Regarding the term 2022-2024 … let’s say that is still keeping this board very busy in dealing with the aftermath.

EyalRozenberg · November 25, 2024, 1:21pm

and not too different from the MoFo / MoCo separation

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but: MoCo effectively controls MoFo, or a large part of it including the Thunderbird project, resulting in a totalitarian fashion of running it which makes our arguments and jabs at each other here in the TDF seem like paradise. So, probably not a good example.

webmink · November 25, 2024, 2:04pm

That’s exactly wrong. The public charity Mozilla Foundation is the top entity and wholly owns both Mozilla Corporation and MZLA (the Thunderbird entity).

EyalRozenberg · November 25, 2024, 2:06pm

@webmink : This argument belongs on a different thread. Sorry about that.

fito · November 25, 2024, 3:10pm

De jure, but de facto…

cornouws · November 25, 2024, 4:28pm

Talking about the history, It is good to share a bit of info from 2023.

Despite quite some resistance, it was possible to have professional external guidance at board meetings in Bucharest (LibOCon 2023).
Afterwards I’ve sent the below mail to TDF staff, MC and Board. It is (my ‘personal’) the list of positive (maybe looking small, but important) things that were agreed in the meeting on and next steps (*).

You will note that there are fundamental steps identified and agreed upon in the meeting. Alas, further work on these again, met resistance and non-interest.

I hope the board and we all will pay attention.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Notes from today’s mediation information call
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 10:07:22 +0200
From: Cor Nouws cor.nouws@documentfoundation.org

*) My selection

Rebuilding trust
- I think the understanding for all is, that the most important now is to work on rebuilding trust in the community.
- Also agreed is, that clearly entangled to that, is looking at the balance of power in the community. (“Aren’t we not (almost) like OpenOffice.org under Sun/Oracle?”)
Charitable purposes/objectives
- Second (I think) on the top-prio discussions: the differences in the understanding on the charitable purposes/objectives of the foundation. That soars for years now, and sits unnoticed at the table with many discussion. We have to own, organize that discussion.
- At some distance, it is connected to the Winheller statement (does that give clear advise on the position of directors?) and that at its turn may be linked to the uncertainty about if our charitable status is in danger.
Support for Florian/team
- It is recognized that we must prevent our stress from spilling over onto staff, especially in the current situation.
- We talked with Florian on how can we support him. He needs a happy team but also a place to blow off pressure…
- So we recognized that we want to have team members informed about what is ongoing (openness) without exposing our stress onto them.
  Italo is willing to help the board with that.
- Florian mentioned that (sometimes) team members feel too little connection, care from our side. So we agreed the AI “gather wishes from the team” (Florian). And we will look at the possibility to use the regular staff-board meetings in a different way than atm.
Policy
- From whatever angle you look at it: it is positive that we talked extensively and more ideas and explanation were heard.
- And that we agreed that the first phase will end only on October 7.
Clear understanding of focus area’s
In the first meeting …, we defined four area’s that need to be worked on:
- board dynamics / dividing of power
- CoI / ecosystem: tenders, general, dynamics
- Staff relation / interaction: protection, policy/way to work
- Moderation of conflicts…
Various
- For various topics at hand, we agreed on next steps.
Other notable mentions
- Several people in different roles mentioned that CoI’s are in the heart of our foundation: nearly everyone has one or more conflicts of interest;
- Given the size of our foundation, group, we now must really move towards ‘institutional structured relations’. The times of a group of friends working together, are really behind us.

–
Cor Nouws, member Board of Directors