Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

LibreOffice Fresh/Stable differentiation should be dropped.
Replaced by LibreOffice Rolling. [Or LibreOffice (Cutting) Edge]
Or maybe even simply LibreOffice Fresh.
With a description of they audience/ and character of the software.
Being latest and greatest. With some rough edges.

Don't think explicitly adding 'edition' to name being really helpful.
Every 'Edition' tends to product differentiation (lacking features and such)
So being an edition without calling it an edition.

Point being that with they label no change being intended.
While every name change including 'edition' will suggest a change within they product.
They only thing we want to realize is product positioning.
Commercial / Non-commercial environment.

So LibreOffice Fresh directed to non-commercial environment

How they 'enterprise' variant should be called no clue. Enterprise doesn't fit they bill, IMHO.

There is some room in they about window to explain LibreOffice Fresh to be 'directed to non-commercial' usage.
With link for more info on


Note: Fresh having they downside that even older versions, still would contain 'Fresh'. Possibility suggesting to be latest. (Cutting) Edge. Would be true. In the sense of suggesting containing of some 'flaws'. Or being new at they time of release But misses the point if of being latest (if a newer version got released). Not sure if it's dramatic, though.

Not sure how much of they in-app labeling (branding) needed. Compared to website directing people to the right place.


And btw, I find LibreOffice Vanilla still confusing in they app-store. And LibreOffice TDF edition with Collabora as distributor also kind of weird. Dislike to many flavors.  And still not clear what they Enterprise 'Edition' being about. Will there be pointers to: Collabora Office / LibreOffice by powered by CIB?
Or how must I interpret this?

Op 11-11-2020 om 11:09 schreef Marina Latini:
On 09.11.2020 16:04, Italo Vignoli wrote:

Hello Italo and Community,
thanks for your inputs here.

Initially I was not in favour of a label at all and you all know, resistance to change is an uneasy beast to deal with. ;) Thinking better to this proposed change I need to admit that indeed, a label, a tag was something needed directly several years ago. I'm not talking only about the need to educate the big enterprise to contribute back to the project, I think that a label could be in general the way to also clarify who is releasing what. This need is much more evident when interacting with people outside our community. In the past we already used some tags unofficially for specifying what the final user was installing. Try for example to think at the time we used "LibreOffice Vanilla" for addressing the version from TDF and distinguish it from the releases done by the different Linux distributions with their repackaging and small changes to the default enabled features. Yes, we already had "Vanilla", "from the Linux distributions", "from TDF", "stable", "unstable", "still", "fresh", "LTS", "enterprise", "business version", "supported version" and probably this unofficial list is even longer than this. :) In general I think that an official label could also finally address this need to identify when the product comes from TDF and when from other places and should avoid to outlaw the companies/public administrations that are not buying a supported version and are instead directly investing in development with own developers or having a contract with one of the ecosystem members for founding the development. I know this is a slightly different point of view and I still think that "origin and target" should be addressed together by this new label/tag added to the main LibreOffice brand. Target and origin matched together in a tag/label should also clarify the final user expectations. When I was a board member I was reading the emails we got to the TDF info address and you can't really imagine how many people are writing to that address considering it like the support address to be contacted in case of issues with a purchased software. Some of these support requests were really rude. :(

1. Product Label for the community supported version provided by TDF

COMMUNITY: I like it and this was my instinctive initial idea. After some researches I understood what Italo told about the "open core" meaning of this tag. As much as I like this proposal, I think our business model is not the open core one and always with the target-origin approach in mind my fear is that this could be misleading. Our community is made of volunteers, ecosystem and investors/donors and this tag is not a way to differentiate what the version provided by TDF with volunteers support is in the reality.

PERSONAL: always with this target-origin approach, I'm missing the origin here. Which tag should be used for example by the Limux project or by SUSE or by all the others that are investing in our project with a contract with one of the ecosystem companies for fixing specific issues without using their LTS branded version? Why we should ask to these contributors to use a personal tag giving the wrong impression to their users that the software is for "for personal use only" and they are the "bad folks" not contributing to our open source project in the proper way?

ROLLING/TUMBLEWEED: I can be biased here as openSUSE community member but "rolling" is not only something unstable. ;) Look for example at openSUSE Tumbleweed. The distro is a rolling one, in constant evolution, it's true, you can get all the updated software available from upstream projects and the distro has in any case a really extensive quality work done by SUSE, its partners and by the openSUSE community. At the end, this tumbleweed concept is not like using a master version of LibreOffice but is closer to chose fresh instead of still. ;) The concept of rolling is something that I really like. it's a shared effort from all the contributors (volunteers, ecosystem and investors) to deliver something that works as expected without providing a long term support version. With this rolling concept I can't see a negative outcome also for public administrations like Munich or companies like SUSE supporting our project in a different way. I like "tumbleweed" more than rolling to be honest but if this concept will be selected we can try to find a more effective and visual word too.

CLASSIC: can be an idea too but for my taste, classic looks also like something old, aged and I can see it more close to the distinction we have for LibreOffice still and LibreOffice fresh instead of a way to differentiate who is doing what and how.

BASIC: with "basic" I can see the same issues already mentioned with "PERSONAL" plus the negative connotation that the basic version has less features or it has something less if compared with the supported version. The difference I see here is much more than the lack of professional support.

CREATIVE: I feel this proposal closer to what I wrote for ROLLING/TUMBLEWEED and indeed, I like it. :)

2. Where to position the label: title bar, about box, start center

On this I would prefer to leave the decision to Marketing and Design team. What I can say is that the start center is not really a visible place. You can see the logo and the new tag/label there only if you really have a fresh user profile, otherwise that area will directly show the recent document list/thumbnails. I would prefer to see the tag in the about box also with a link (like for the credit) to a page explaining what the tag means and why it is there. On the title bar I could see both the chosen tag or a "LibreOffice technology".

Sorry for the long e-mail ;)

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: 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.