“We won’t get any closer to the goal if we don’t start.”
such a great line, yes, just take a step! Even if it’s hard, you will learn something but if you don’t try, you won’t.
Article says they also switch to Linux, which is kind of an even bigger deal!
Good to see. LibreOffice is solid today. Was passable back in like 2012. Now it’s pretty excellent, at least for most people. Ribbon interface like 5 years ago was pretty rough. Now I think it’s pretty close to great. I thought OnlyOffice and WPS Office had a substantial visual edge but that was me comparing it to like 2020 LibreOffice. 2025 LibreOffice looks pretty good now that I wouldn’t feel worries about newcomers looking at it as a relic of 2003 visual design
Hopefully this also means monetary investment in open source, not just open source usage without a support contract or contributing back. Matrix is a great example of an open source project that is being used by governments but struggling to get paid because governments are employing their own support staff and making internal forks.
But the more governments, agencies and individuals switch, there greater the chance they’ll pay the developers and maintainers for support or features.
Is it even legal?
No it’s not. For some reason, most of the larger German publications do this, as of now apparently they haven’t been sued.
IANAL so please don’t take my word for it. But if I understood it correctly, this is indeed legal. You don’t have to offer your stuff for free. And as long as you let the user decide if they want to pay with money or with data, it’s legal. The important part is, that the user needs to give consent, which is the case here. Not talking about the morality of it though.
I answered in another comment:
There seem to be conflicting opinions on the matter:
https://netzpolitik.org/2024/pay-or-okay-privatsphaere-nur-gegen-gebuehr/
https://www.etes.de/blog/pay-or-okay-pur-abo-modell-zulaessig/
In any case, the requirements for “pay or okay” being legal are: (translated with deepl)
Equivalent alternative
“In principle, the tracking of user behavior can be based on consent if a tracking-free model is offered as an alternative, even if this is subject to payment. However, the service that users receive in a paid model must firstly represent an equivalent alternative to the service that they obtain through consent. Secondly, the consent must meet all the conditions for effectiveness set out in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), i.e. in particular the requirements listed in Art. 4 No. 11 and Art. 7 GDPR. Whether the payment option - e.g. a monthly subscription - is to be regarded as an equivalent alternative to consent to tracking depends in particular on whether users are given equivalent access to the same service in return for a standard market fee. Equivalent access generally exists if the offers include the same service, at least in principle.”
Data processing for ad-free use
If a user opts for the subscription option, only storage and readout processes that are technically absolutely necessary may take place (Section 25 (1) TTDSG). Furthermore, the permissions under Art. 6 para. 1 GDPR must be complied with.
Granularity/prohibition of general consent for non-subscribers
“If there are several processing purposes that differ significantly from one another, the requirements for voluntariness must be met to the effect that consent can be granted on a granular basis. This means, among other things, that users must be able to actively select the individual purposes for which consent is to be obtained (opt-in). Only if purposes are very closely related can a bundling of purposes be considered. A blanket overall consent for different purposes in this respect cannot be effectively granted.”
Transparency, comprehensibility and information
In addition, the consents must meet the other requirements of the GDPR. This applies in particular to the principle of transparency, comprehensibility and compliance with information obligations.
As I see it, at the very least the granularity requirement is not fulfilled in these cases.
I wonder why they chose LibreOffice instead of Collabora?
Collabora is a online frontend for LibreOffice.
IIRC, Collabora is based off of LibreOffice.
Yes it is… but it actually allows for collab features that LibreOffice doesn’t have.
Like what?
If Collabora has extra features they do not think they need, relying on the lowest dependencies seems like the most reliable and fair choice.
LibreOffice is offline; each person can run the software in their own device to create and edit documents.
It’s features are equivalent to 2010 Office. That’s not necessarily bad, but it’s not how people usually work today.
Collabora lets you host documents on a central server and have multiple people edit at once, dynamically tracking changes and allowing full revision management. Or, you can keep your documents local and not host them if you don’t want to.
I think you are thinking of Collabora Online, not Collabora Office and surely not Collabora the company.
Maybe they’ve been watching Schleswig Holstein in Germany and they do it better than we do.
