This plausibly demonstrates why a nonprofit may not be a great vehicle for some free software projects - while the nonprofit should do whats best for the project, if the main work is done by commercial sponsors then it’s crucial those sponsors feel the relationship is beneficial.

The reality is free software office apps require significant professional development input. Apache Open Office is the obvious example.

It’s a classic version of the tragedy of the commons. If Collabora goes off to its own thing, I struggle to believe they will maintain the development rate with new devs, and without development the TDF sponsorship will fall off.

I hope we are not looking back in two years time regretting this.

> if the main work is done by commercial sponsors then it’s crucial those sponsors feel the relationship is beneficial

But if the sponsor is getting a tax write-off because of their donation to non-profit to do work on the project that they would have done anyways for their commercial product, then they are basically just using the non-profit to avoid taxes, and while I'm not a lawyer, it wouldn't surprise me if that is illegal, especially if the company also controls seats on the board of directors.

> a nonprofit may not be a great vehicle for some free software projects

I've frequently wondered if we need some new kind of structure for funding open source projects works kind of like a non-profit but is more lenient in some ways, like allowing some kinds of business transactions in addition to accepting donations, and maybe you don't get as much of a tax deduction for donating to it. I don't know exactly what that would look like though, and it would probably be difficult to get right.

You're considering open source development as just another commercial endeavor. The fact that this is done by a nonprofit organization means it's pursuing goals that are not strictly commercial, and that is fine. Think about the GNU project as another example. If someone is not happy with that, it is always possible to start their own company.

I don’t think they’re considering it a commercial endeavor, they’re just acknowledging that complex open source projects often require paid work to effectively maintain and develop them.

The GNU project works because it’s a bunch of small packages that are each maintained by approximately one person each for free on their spare time.

LibreOffice is a complex office suite that essentially competes with a multi-billion dollar industry of complex office applications and services.

It’s also an open source project that has pretty much always depended on corporate sponsorship and a paid variant rather than having some other form financial backing (e.g., it never went the Wikipedia route of being completely free for everyone and only surviving on donations).

Do you consider GNU Emacs a small package?

If a text editor is not smaller than an office suite that handles Excel spreadsheets, PDFs, Word, PowerPoint, and Access databases, I made the right choice never using it.

I don't think they were talking about the size of the codebase. How much funding does emacs require to maintain?

"Collabora clearly has a conflict of interest, as their Collabora Office products both benefit from, and compete with LibreOffice proper."

But that was the point of TDF: being an umbrella for the community and the commercial partners. Commercial partner having its own interests is something that was expected and encouraged as long as the work would be done for the common good on the LibreOffice codebase. For the TDF itself there are COI policies in place as well from the very beginning.

"A non-profit dedicated to promoting open source software should do what is best for that project and its users regardless of if doing so steps on the toes of corporate sponsors."

That kind of thinking is what brought this result - especially when the corporate and the non-profit are supposed to be partners and work together for the common good. The result should be dialog to find a compromise that would work for both sides. So in this case forcefully reversing a previous decision and ignoring the de-atticisation rule (having active developers working on the code-base) was a needless aggressive move that just worsened the situation. And the reason for the move according to the TDF board was to "start the discussion".

Note that the proper procedure for de-atticisation of the LOOL codebase would be to confirm there is notable developer activity. Users wanting LOOL is NOT enough and the TDF board has clearly ignored one of its own rules.