Sun and OpenOffice.org


An interview published today, 8 February, carries the really unfortunate headline, "Sun urged to give up OpenOffice control". It headlines an interview of me by Tom Sanders and the headline is wrong. I did not argue in the interview that OpenOffice.org wants Sun to give up control of OOo (not that it really has it) nor did I argue that I, personally, wished it. Rather, I argued that a foundation that would hold copyright of the code could make sense, especially if it brought in the contributions of a company like IBM, which has yet to contribute to the community.

An interview published today, 8 February, carries the really unfortunate headline, "Sun urged to give up OpenOffice control". It headlines an interview of me by Tom Sanders and the headline is wrong. I did not argue in the interview that OpenOffice.org wants Sun to give up control of OOo (not that it really has it) nor did I argue that I, personally, wished it. Rather, I argued that a foundation that would hold copyright of the code could make sense, especially if it brought in the contributions of a company like IBM, which has yet to contribute to the community.

I've asked Tom to change the headlines to more accurately reflect what I said. For headlines like this and quotes out of context give the wrong impression. Sun has been a very strong supporter of OpenOffice.org and I certainly hope it continues to be. A foundation, which is thought about from time to time, however only makes sense if it solves a problem. Would a foundation solve OpenOffice.org's problems? Not necessarily. And it would imply a host of other problems.

Posted: Wed - February 8, 2006 at 03:01 PM          

©