why didn’t they just ask chat peepee to write an office suite for them? i heard it’s really good at code 🫣
(slash s !!!)
Looks like it’s some kind of dependency… seems very odd though, why is this included? Are they using it to handle .docx, .xlsx, etc files? I remember being tempted to do that once years ago when I ran into one of those Really Hard Problems that would take weeks to solve. I spent the weeks instead
I think they’re used so agents can make changes to Word, Excel and PowerPoint files. It seems to be using the headless version of LibreOffice.
Yeah… I didn’t want to include 430MB of bloat in my bundle to each end user though for one feature, so I did it the hard way instead: Manually editing document files using XPATH. Maybe I’m too old school, if everyone’s shipping 1GB+ apps like it’s nothing nowadays.
Wow! If only I could get LibreOffice for free without ChatGPT.
Weird. I would have expected them to rather illegally bundle a pirated Microsoft Office with it.
It’d be legal if they just claimed it was part of the training data
Old and busted:
Running your badly written bullshit on a bundled Chromium instance.
New hotness:
Running your badly written bullshit on a bundled office suite.
Future:
Running your badly written bullshit on an office suite running through Wasm on a Chromium instance inside of a virtual machine.
Whatever it takes to not have to make developers have to learn to write code again.
ahhh, the trick has been dispelled. it isn’t as magical as i thought it was.
Is that legal?
The duality of Lem
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that MPL is weak copyleft, so libreoffice can be distributed alongside proprietary software as long as they make the source of their libreoffice build available.
Yes. LibreOffice is licensed under the MPL, which permits redistribution. Assuming that they noted it contains LibreOffice and where to get the source, anyway.
No! Will there be consequences?
Libreoffice is MPL, which allows distribution alongside proprietary software.
That’s interesting and distressing.
On what basis did you proclaim “No! Not legal!” if you’re now surprised by the license? Misunderstanding of the license?
Why? The authors of the software have specifically allowed it to be used in ways like this.
It’s the whole issue with copyleft licences.
No! Anymore questions?
Yes, are you including extrajudicial consequences in your answer?
No, do you think guillotines, or is that too old school?
Maybe, I think guillotines can be impersonal, which might not elicit an appropriate level of emotional investment into any acts that are intended to be carried out.
Edit I broke the line of questions I’m so sorry
