LibreOffice only forked from OpenOffice.org six weeks ago. Already, however, news about its future directions is starting to trickle out. The details are sometimes sketchy, but they suggest that LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org could diverge more quickly than most observers imagined.
Initially, The Document Foundation (TDF), which oversees LibreOffice development, announced a general set of principles in The Next Decade Manifesto, a name that refers to the fact that OpenOffice.org recently celebrated its tenth anniversary. This manifesto promises that TDF will support free software and open standards and work methods, as well as other causes, such as the preservation of endangered languages. To make matters clearer, the manifesto also states what TDF rejects, including monopolies and proprietary formats. The manifesto also promises open, peer-reviewed development.
These declarations are promising, so far as they go. They try to distinguish TDF not only from Microsoft Office, its main proprietary format, but also from Oracle Corporation, the current owners of OpenOffice.org, which many people believe lacks dedication to free software practices. However, the declarations are too high-level to give much indication of what directions LibreOffice might be heading.
Recently, though, more concrete information has been released. This information appears in LibreOffice blog entries, notably those of Charles Schultz for November 10 and October 28, and in TDF announcements, one in German and the other in English. Although the announced priorities are still vague in one or two places, and no one of them gives a complete list of changes, they are still the most detailed information about LibreOffice's directions that has been released. Fortunately, Italo Vignoli, the member of the TDF steering committee who wrote the English release, has provided some clarifications to me privately.
The vaguest reference in the public statements is the declaration that, "After 20 years of feature oriented software, it is now the right time to bring back content at the centre of user focus." The 20 years is a reference to the age of the code, and its mention suggests a criticism of how Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and the original StarDivision decided its development priorities, but the exact criticism is uncertain.
Asked to explain this declaration, Vignoli writes, "So far software has been focused more on features than on contents, and a good user is considered [one] who is able to use features and not [one] who is able to develop good content." As a result, modern office suites include many features that users either do not need or do not use. "Of course, this does not mean that software should have less features," he adds.
According to Vignoli, one thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the proliferation of hardware platforms. "Editing and reading on a large screen is not like reading on a small screen," he notes. "In addition, being mobile adds another layer of complexity, because the relationship with contents is different when you are on the road: your attention is lower and your time pressure is higher."
To judge from these comments, TDF is apparently using the break with OpenOffice.org to reconsider priorities. My speculation is that something like OOO4Kids, with its different interfaces for different levels of users might be an answer to unwanted features, while the mention of multiple hardware platforms suggests that TDF may be considering the frequent requests for a version of the code suitable for mobile devices. The general nature of the responses suggests that TDF is still developing the details, but would prefer to pay greater attention to usability than OpenOffice.org did in the past.
The significance of other details in the official statements is more obvious, although once or twice I asked Vignoli to clarify: