So, plenty good to skip MS/Goog, but why what seems like reinventing a lot of work when there are things like LibreOffice/OnlyOffice already out there? Didn’t see anything in the article which makes it seem like just a branding effort.
It’s indeed an OnlyOffice fork. I guess they want to play safe, considering that OO is Russian based.
I didn’t realise OnlyOffice was open source. Any guesses why they forked that instead of LO?
OO is significantly closer to MS office UI wise. As to why they forked it, OO was basically only open source on paper and didn’t really accept external contributions. They tried to shut down this fork with some dubious legal claims that are blatantly in conflict with at least the spirit of the open source license as icing on the cake.
It’s not just UI wise.
They explain it on their website : their internal logic for a document is based on OOXML logic, while LO is rather based on a ODT-based logic. So compatibility with Office is more straightforward in OO (though we know Microsoft is not quite exactly following the OOXML norm, so still not perfect…)
The intent is to replace MS Office in government use, so it’s necessary for the EU to maintain its own codebase. The whole point is reducing government dependence on foreign-controlled software. The only way to accomplish that is to create your own self-controlled fork.
Especially considering the rather… drastic measures they original owners took. Starting a lawsuit when someone tries to fork your open source software is an excellent sign that someone badly needs to create a fork of your “open source” software
