[Editted version of the one I posted on the Board mailing list by
accident; thanks for reminders :-]
Official Edition is really confusing. Which suggests there is also a
A copycat fork? Or are those LTS releases powered by clones, trying to
make a profit from TDF LibreOffice
I also find it hard to differentiate between 'branch' and 'edition'
LibreOffice by TDF build base ond they 'latest' branch. While LTS being
somewhat more 'conventional'.
Whereas Edition being mostly about variants of the same thing. So
Standard and Professional Edition.
Both look the same, but Professional has more features. OK, there are
some marketing stunts,
where same stuff gets sold with different labels (thinking about
fertilizers) with different prices.
But that's they exception and feels like deception.
Sometimes I tend to 'drop' the explicit mentioning of 'Edition'.
Does it really need explicit 'Edition' to be called edition when
materially an edition?
So the website/wiki etc LibreOffice is promoted as Latest supplied/ made
available by TDF.
LibreOffice simply called LibreOffice. Prominently being presented as
based on a 'rolling' release model/framework which might be more unstable,
with a 'fixed' snapshot schedule. So we tag it 7.0.2 for differentiation
purposes (bug tracking/communication). But snapshot 'of rolling'
Without explicitly guaranteeing 7.0.3 to be better compared to 7.0.2. It
often is, but not all they time.
Take current 7.0.2 bit a of a calculation disaster compared to 7.0.1
So would advocate a more or less Debian Development model. Rolling model
with Cycles (smaller incremental) large major updates.
Where LibreOffice LTS powered by being framed a still/stable editions
for more 'conventional usage'
Note also they distinction by 'powered' and 'supplied' or 'made
available' which more passive, compared to
powered. TDF simply builds the 'latest' branch, doesn't do much
development by itself.
And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still
edition at TDF.
People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. If they dislike that
they can dig in they archive reprository to find some older version.
Also, users don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have serve
barely supported 'still'. Which being a kind of LTS light.
Where as the still branch never had a proper reputation (at least in my
world). I mostly pick fresh (or even master).
Replace that with a 'LTS story' powered by.. It cheap enough to be
bought by regular users.
So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent
improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable,
older and paid LTS.
And we could put a note how to dig up they last release in a cycle.
However not to be communicated actively as 'stable'.
LibreOffice Rolling (made available by TDF) and LibreOffice LTS powered
With same additional text in about box they Rolling release about LTS
And communication about they rolling release cycle concept
Maybe is made available or distributed by TDF better compared to supplied.
As it points out TDF not being directly responsible for the code itself,
or at least that there is something more to it.
What I personally conceive is a mess if of course 'powered by'. There
are two or more LTS versions :-(
And I assume there are some difference between CIB <-> Collabora (except
but I'm surely not knowing what that should be. I mean it, I really
don't know! Between LibreOffice and Powered Editions I can get it.
But even that - LibreOffice by partners being more mature (or older)
editions - not that obvious.
Is CIB better compared to Collabora? Or visa versa? Is there no
difference, but why two versions? I'm still confused here.
As a user I would think, did I buy the right one. [Looking at it regular
user perspective; as they Editions being sold in app stores to general
Some other editions I made up in a brainstorming session (some are awful)
LibreOffice Regular Edition by TDF
LibreOffice Common Edition
LibreOffice Fresh Edition
LibreOffice Feature-rich Edition
LibreOffice Innovation Edition
LibreOffice Innovative Edition
LibreOffice Novel Edition
LibreOffice State of the Art Edition
LibreOffice Progress Edition
LibreOffice Progressive Edition
LibreOffice Advancement Edition
LibreOffice Latest Edition [problem older editions 'show' latests..
which isn't the case]
LibreOffice Active Edition
LibreOffice Modern Edition
LibreOffice Snapshot edition
LibreOffice Rolling Edition
Op 23-10-2020 om 18:43 schreef Simon Phipps:
It certainly (correctly) indicates there are unofficial editions in
circulation. I see that as a helpful differentiator. I would not jump to
the conclusion they are untrustworthy; however, the use of a validated
"Libreoffice technology" signifier as Italo has proposed would fix that if
it were a problem for other editions to confirm they too are approved by
The term "Community Edition" is very commonly used to differentiate
feature-limited versions so if I had to choose, I would rather our version
was considered strong because we use an "Official Edition" tag rather than
the software produced by others being considered stronger because we use a
"Community Edition" tag.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 3:16 PM Nigel Verity <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Doesn't this imply there are some unofficial and, thereby, untrustworthy
editions in circulation?
On 23 Oct 2020, at 06:44, Simon Phipps <email@example.com> wrote:
Taking on board all the concerns about not giving the impression of a
weaker version, and if "no label" is really not an option, how about
calling TDF's package "official edition"?
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
- Re: [libreoffice-marketing] The Edition Matter · Telesto
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy