The MS Office Eula makes similar claims on the rights of work produced
using their software. MS owns your work! You don't! It'd be
interesting to see that one stand up in court though. Too many
precedents exist where MS has not fought to enforce that part of their
own Eula. So, I can't imagine any judge anywhere allowing that. Hmm,
maybe MS have changed their Eula since i last read it thoroughly about a decade or so ago.
I too wouldn't touch Kingsoft with a barge pole. I want to steer towards using formats that will
around and usable in a few years time. I want to be able to open
documents maybe 10-20 years from now without having to struggle against
malware and without having to try to find long-dead versions of long
dead software produced by a company that may not even exist by then.
What i tend to find is that people use all sorts of rubbishy excuses for why they 'cant' move away
from certain software. They moan and grumble
about petty issues in an alternative they have been handed but then go
and find some other alternative that they feel more in control of because they chose it. Once they
have made the break away from that certain software they become more reasonable about looking at
One of the commonest grumbles i hear about LO (at the moment) is that it
uses the old interface and not the nice new ribbon-bar. So, 'obviously' LO is old! (Easy to see
how FUD develops, right?). Kingsoft neatly
deal with that and such grumblers can now be pointed towards that as an
alternative. Of course when i do that i will still be quite disparaging about the ribbon-bar
specifically and about proprietary software (and
formats) in general but at least now i can sound like it's not "just sour grapes",
just because LO hasn't got it. Now i can be seen to be offering genuine choices rather than trying
to herd people in a direction they might not want to go.
Of course any fool that does escape the one trap by jumping into another
is still able to completely jump free by trying out LO at some point in
the future. Perhaps by then they will be ready.
From: Jay Lozier <email@example.com>
To: Tom Davies <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, 7 June 2013, 1:46
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO alternative is not LO
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:09:48 -0400, Tom Davies <email@example.com>
That comment looks like FUD to me. Where are the links to substantiate
his claims? There is a lot of FUD about China at the moment. Perhaps
some is true but western journalism has it's own biases so getting at
the truth is a tad tricky.
Also it's not Cnet that are recommending Kingsoft. It's only the
author's opinion. PLus it's got a question mark after it. If you
search through Cnet you will probably find similar claims in titles of
articles about LibreOffice
This page in Wikipedia
shows Kingsoft has been around since 1988 and is available for Windows
and Gnu&Linux (incl Android). LibreOffice's first release date is
listed as 2010 which just shows how tricky it is to adequately report on
such things. Many people would say the first release of LO is the same
as OpenOffice and that should be the same as StarOffice's first release
date over a decade ago. I just had to do a little editing there myself
but if you check the history you can see that the lines about Kingsoft
have been unchanged for ages, possibly years.
Kingsoft appears to use a proprietary format with MSO support. Also, they
only have Writer, Calc, and Impress equivalents. Those two issues make me
wary about the package: poor ODF support and limit suite. The ODF issue is
philosophical; I prefer to use an open, ISO format that means my files are
much less likely to be orphans in future. Most long time computer users
have data that is in obsolete file formats if not on obsolete media.
From: Kracked_P_P---webmaster <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: LibreO - Marketing Global <email@example.com>;
LibreO - Users Global <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 19:48
Subject: [libreoffice-users] CNET is claiming the best free MSO
alternative is not LO
I never even heard of this office packages company.
If the commenter is correct, then CNET really need to rethink their
Kingsoft Office 2013: The best free Microsoft Office alternative?
Not only does it have the best interface around, it also brings
innovations like tabbed document viewing and drag-and-drop paragraph
by Rick Broida
June 5, 2013 10:52 AM PDT
One of the replies to that article is as follows
25 minutes ago
You do know Kingsoft is a communist Chinese company whose nation has
been conducting unrelenting hack attacks to strip America of all its
technology? If you can't build it, steal it is their credo. What better
way to open up a million backdoors then by offering free software that
exactly emulates Microsoft's flagship program.
By the way read their EULA very carefully. IT CLEARLY STATES THAT
ANYTHING CREATED USING THEIR SOFTWARE BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF KINGSOFT.
Have you read it Karyn? I downloaded this software several years ago
read that EULA and used Revo to deepscan uninstall that software. It had
put tendrils all through my computer. Revo is very good and got it all,
but don't be fooled.
This is part and parcel to China's hacking attempts and for cnet to
recommend it is both incredibly naive and questionable at best.
I doubt the reviewer ever read the Kingsoft EULA (nor have I). Though you
do bring a good point about EULA's being highly anti-consumer as typically
written by most properietary software companies. I would not be surprised
if some EULA's by others claim ownership of all documents created by the
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
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