Document Foundation Starts Charging For 'Free' LibreOffice on Apple App Store (theregister.com) 59
The Document Foundation, the organization that tends the open source productivity suite LibreOffice, has decided to start charging for one version of the software. The Register reports: LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice and is offered under the free/open source Mozilla Public License Version 2.0. A Monday missive from the Document Foundation reveals the org will begin charging 8.99 euros for the software -- but only when sold via Apple's Mac App Store. That sum has been styled a "convenience fee ... which will be invested to support development of the LibreOffice project."
The foundation suggests paying up in the Mac App Store is ideal for "end users who want to get all of their desktop software from Apple's proprietary sales channel." Free downloads of LibreOffice for macOS from the foundation's site will remain available and arguably be superior to the App Store offering, because that version will include Java. The foundation argued that Apple does not permit dependencies in its store, so it cannot include Java in the 8.99 euro offering. The version now sold in the App Store supersedes a previous offering provided by open source support outfit Collabora, which charged $10 for a "Vanilla" version of the suite and threw in three years of support. The foundation's marketing officer Italo Vignoli said the change was part of a "new marketing strategy."
"The Document Foundation is focused on the release of the Community version, while ecosystem companies are focused on a value-added long-term supported versions targeted at enterprises," Vignoli explained. "The distinction has the objective of educating organizations to support the FOSS project by choosing the LibreOffice version which has been optimized for deployments in production and is backed by professional services, and not the Community version generously supported by volunteers."
"The objective is to fulfil the needs of individual and enterprise users in a better way," Vignoli added, before admitting "we know that the positive effects of the change will not be visible for some time. Educating enterprises about FOSS is not a trivial task and we have just started our journey in this direction."
The foundation suggests paying up in the Mac App Store is ideal for "end users who want to get all of their desktop software from Apple's proprietary sales channel." Free downloads of LibreOffice for macOS from the foundation's site will remain available and arguably be superior to the App Store offering, because that version will include Java. The foundation argued that Apple does not permit dependencies in its store, so it cannot include Java in the 8.99 euro offering. The version now sold in the App Store supersedes a previous offering provided by open source support outfit Collabora, which charged $10 for a "Vanilla" version of the suite and threw in three years of support. The foundation's marketing officer Italo Vignoli said the change was part of a "new marketing strategy."
"The Document Foundation is focused on the release of the Community version, while ecosystem companies are focused on a value-added long-term supported versions targeted at enterprises," Vignoli explained. "The distinction has the objective of educating organizations to support the FOSS project by choosing the LibreOffice version which has been optimized for deployments in production and is backed by professional services, and not the Community version generously supported by volunteers."
"The objective is to fulfil the needs of individual and enterprise users in a better way," Vignoli added, before admitting "we know that the positive effects of the change will not be visible for some time. Educating enterprises about FOSS is not a trivial task and we have just started our journey in this direction."
"Free" Software (Score:1)
Sounds like a way to squeeze people who choose Macintosh.
Re:"Free" Software (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Free" Software (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, its not the worst thing in the world. Part of Apples relative success in keeping most malware out of their products is its sandbox, and for the less technically inclined, ie my parents, just getting software from the app store means that there isnt a need to lower the sandbox security level to permit signed but sideloaded apps. Its good for my parents because I dont need to stress that next time I visit theres going to be a purple monkey in the corner of their desktop, all I have to do is teach them password hygine and a distrustful attitude to email and phone calls (I count "not falling for phone scammers" a part of security common sense, since usually the first thing the scammer is after is access to the computer anyway.)
With all that said, innevitably, one always does end up eventually dropping that security level. Not everything someone wants to use is in the app store. So teaching the olds how to recognize genuine open source and figuring out what to trust in non open source software, thats a tougher lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
May as well be. I don't test any of my code against an OS that won't run on any of my hardware. If there was a demand for it, I wouldn't do it for free, even though everything I've written I've given out for free, except for stuff I've been paid to do before even starting. Apple users don't mind paying extra, so they WILL pay extra. Apparently many other developers feel the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Reading that made me throw up in my mouth a little.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that some Apple fanboi used up a mod point to label my comment as "troll" just confirms everything I believe about Apple users.
Re: (Score:2)
This is due to Apple's policy of Apple not allowing Java so the version on the app store is not as good as you can download from the Foundation.
Also:
"The Document Foundation is focused on the release of the Community version, while ecosystem companies are focused on a value-added long-term supported versions targeted at enterprises," Vignoli explained. "The distinction has the objective of educating organizations to support the FOSS project by choosing the LibreOffice version which has been optimized for de
Re: (Score:2)
Paying a few bucks to offset the costs of a full-featured product that works well and avoids hundreds in Microsoft taxes is not "being fleeced", to me.
Re:"Free" Software (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Free" Software (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought this was literally the use-case put forward for monetising open source.
It's free, if you wish to go out and get it yourself - go nuts.
If you'd prefer to pay someone to package it and offer support - go nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too bad that they don't do this in the Microsoft Store as well. It might convince more people to take their cheap Windows laptops out of "S" mode so they can use regular software installers on them.
Re: (Score:2)
All of nobody actually uses S mode. That was basically Microsoft's way to compete with Chromebooks in the education sector, but it turns out that they'd rather just buy the Chromebook instead.
Re: "Free" Software (Score:3)
Sounds cool to me. (Score:2)
Smart move actually.
It costs $99/year to publish to Apple (Score:4, Informative)
At 8.99 euros (approximately $8.97 USD), they only need 12 new people each year to pay to cover the Apple charge just to have an app in the App Store.
Re: It costs $99/year to publish to Apple (Score:2)
Re: It costs $99/year to publish to Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple keeps 30% of the sale, so they'd need to sell 16 to cover the annual fee.
Krita did it (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, Krita did it in the Windows store and was able to hire additional developers because of the success for it. A lot of people will pay to help the project on platforms where they're used to paying for software even if they know they can download it for free on the website.
Re: (Score:2)
As much as it sucks that Apple gets 30%, making donating to the developers easier is a worthy goal. There are plenty of people who won't give their credit card details to random websites or PayPal, but in the App Store it's a couple of taps and only Apple has your billing details.
Do they offer a free option too? I don't know what the App Store rules say about that, but on Android it's common to have a free and paid version.
Re: (Score:2)
Paint.net did the same thing with the Window Store.
I don't use that version (I use the downloadable one from getpaint.net) but I did pay for it.
It is a smart move.
here we go again (Score:2)
I remember OpenOffice
Re: (Score:1)
I remember OpenOffice
But do you remember StarOffice?
Re: (Score:2)
It's Wrong (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am just as against that--as I am for VLC's MPC plug asking for money for the Windows version.
Not sure about what VLC is doing because I don't know the details, but judging by TFS I have no problem with what LibreOffice is doing. The software is still free-as-in-speech, and it's still free-as-in-beer when obtained via other channels. I assume there's some maintenance effort required to package LibreOffice specifically for the App Store, keep it up-to-date, and maintain an exception around Apple's refusal to allow the Java dependency to be distributed by the store. it seems reasonable to charge for t
App Store Placement (Score:2)
Just for grins, I went to the App Store on my MBP. When searching for "libreoffice" it didn't make the top 20. When searching "libre office" (adding the space) it was top three and still behind Microsoft Word. /shrug/
Great (Score:5, Informative)
I don't see anything wrong or controversial at all about this move. It is available for free by download for all platforms. If you want the convenience of the "store", then fine. Some of the money will go to support the project as well.
Some people WANT to pay for software and strangely think it has less value if they don't. Plus, more ways to get open source, multi-platform software is a great thing.
It would be good if they put in the description on the store that it is available for download free at libreoffice.org. I have no idea if they plan to do that, and if they don't, it isn't all that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and they should offer it for a fee on the Windows store as well. Maybe a version with email support on ubuntu store also?
Re: (Score:1)
This is like the lottery (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. It's just another way for people to easily "donate" to the cause. Also, there could be tax implications if you use the software for business.
I wish people would stop with the lottery nonsense. The lottery is entertainment. I could easily say that alcohol or sporting event tickets are a tax on stupid people too.
Re: (Score:1)
You've got to be kidding! Alcohol or sporting event tickets actually provide you with something useful. Lottery tickets provide people with (at best) a 50% return on investment, and the pathetic delusion that they are going to win enough to change their sad, pathetic lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's just another way for people to easily "donate" to the cause.
Exactly. I already know you can download it for free and, if you're so inclined, use it without paying a penny for it. But I donate to software I like - such as Blender, Gimp, Libre Office - because I actually use the software and appreciate that others put in their time and effort to create it. If you don't like the software, don't download or use it. The rest of us can choose to support the software we use, even if we technically don't have to.
Re: This is like the lottery (Score:1)
Paint.net does the same thing (Score:4, Informative)
happens on Android (Score:3)
This is not unusual and has been happening for years on Android. An app might cost a price in the Google Play Store, but might be free from F-Droid or if sideloaded by downloading the APK from the source.
I have no problem with this arrangement. Ultimately everyone needs to pay the bills somehow.
Fees Fees More Fees (Score:3)
Does Apple still "take" a 30 percent "convenience fee" from each monetary transaction for using their "walled garden" app store?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Fees Fees More Fees (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you look up the actual profit (not income) margin on the app store, then you'll realize that "maintenance" isn't the reason for them charging a percentage :)
Re: Fees Fees More Fees (Score:3)
Yes, like Steam. Hate to say this but the shops where you buy things often charge far more than they paid at wholesale.
Re: Fees Fees More Fees (Score:3)
Slippery slope. (Score:2)
I'm kind of saddened at how many "there's nothing wrong with this" posts there are.
How long before the "free" versions get harder and harder to find, are put behind mandatory registrations and other hoops to try to just get you to buy from some shitty apps store where some monopoly gets a hefty cut anyway?
Maybe I'm the only one getting Jimmy Wales emails going "98% of people never gave us shit but you did". I admit I don't donate much but that should be the way they're asking for money; direct donations -
Re: (Score:2)
I'm kind of saddened at how many "there's nothing wrong with this" posts there are.
How long before the "free" versions get harder and harder to find, are put behind mandatory registrations and other hoops to try to just get you to buy from some shitty apps store where some monopoly gets a hefty cut anyway?
If that happens then LibreOffice will be forked, just as OpenOffice was forked to create LibreOffice when people weren't satisfied with the quality of Oracle's commitment to OpenOffice and to Open Source in general.
FOSS has its corrective feedback loops and mechanisms, and they work. One of those mechanisms is greed-heads forcing forks and re-boots; these remind us all why we should literally vote with our wallets and/or our time and NOT take FOSS for granted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd agree with you except for Audacity. They started spying, people got mad, at least two projects got traction for forks - and now months later, they're both effectively dead and Audacity still has the tracking.
Why wouldn't that happen here?
Re: (Score:1)
People still use Audacity? If you want to split a MP3, convert it or other such simple tasks, you can use even online tools.
PS: I am sure Audacity I have installed from my distro's repo doesn't have any tracking.
Bottled Water (Score:2)
I guess this is the software equivalent of bottled water.
App stores came out of malware security disaster (Score:2)
There are two issues, libreoffice charging for it, and the app store.
App Stores and sandboxes are the right thing for most people. Even if your an expert, you should prefer them, you want your apps especially browsers sandboxed. You want the source vetted, You want executables signed. Most people don't use emacs or vim or type arcane commands on a command line, spend days trying to compile things, thats a fringe group. If you have an app store and a sandbox, taking care of updates, t locks out all the email
Libre Office isn't ready to be sold (Score:1)
Undercutting Collabora (Score:2)
This seems to be a way to get the payments that Collabora has been getting. Except the problem is that Collabora does a lot of LO development. This probably bodes ill.