They still offer NeoOffice 3.2.1 for free. If you want the newer 3.3 version, they only request a single payment of $10.00. You can then install it on as many machines as you would like.

3.3 is a significant upgrade where all Java code is replaced with Cocoa code. Apple has moved away from supporting Java in 10.8. There are only two developers, and these guys work hard to port that code and make NeoOffice a truly Mac version of Open Office.

Do you have an iPhone or iPod? Do you purchase apps? Do you purchase downloads from iTunes? Why would you balk at $10.00? You can't even get a pizza for that any more.

The only other word processors or spreadsheets that I know or use on Mac are all paid ones including Nisus, Mariner Writer, and Mariner Calc. Even the iDevice app of Mariner Calc is $6.00. Refusing to pay $10.00 for the full suite of NeoOffice just seems a bit stingy and weird to me.

After all, I suppose you could download the free source code of 3.2.1 and then port it from Java to Cocoa yourself. That would be free.

At least easily accessible, 3.2 isn't available for download from the site. I didn't spend ages looking, just because I was surprised.

I understand the new version may be an upgrade, but I was perfectly happy with whatever the last version I had was (whatever the latest that would run on 10.4).

No iphone or ipad. I've never downloaded anything from iTunes. I would, and clearly do balk at $10.

I do know that I was paying for software when I bought my new macbook, but since it's included in the price of the hardware, it's easy to ignore. Ethically, I can't pay for downloaded software, not matter how much work went into it. Now I'm bothered that I didn't accept a friend's invitation to install MS Office, which she had a license to put on a few machines. My reasoning was that I'd rather be and advocate for freeware.

My problem isn't that it's $10, my problem is that it's anything at all they're asking. There probably is some level where I'd think it was just funny and pay up (five cents, maybe?), but basically asking for anything turns me off from using the software.

Why are you so adverse to paying $10.00 for an application that two developers obviously put a great deal of time and effort into porting? Yes, Open Office is free. However, porting it to Cocoa so it will run on OS X 10.8 and future versions does take time and resources. $10.00 for that does not seem like a lot to me, and I am a huge advocate of free software in both senses of the word. I also advocate using applications written by small developers. I write applications. I don't charge a lot. But why shouldn't I get paid for my work?

The OS, yes, is included with a Mac Book but every other application unless specifically freeware is paid software including MS Office.

In any case, here is a direct link for all versions of NeoOffice 3.2.1 for OS X 10.5 through 10.7.

http://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/mirrors.php?file=NeoOffice-3.2.1-Intel.dmg

Simply put, I think information should be free. I cannot bring myself to pay for information. Somewhere down the chain, the hardware and energy used to pay for the transference of information is paid for. Once that's done, I think we're all good.

In some senses, I do have "a dog in the fight," so to speak. I'm a musician/composer. I basically never get any money apart from charity and performance fees when I play. The bulk of my scores I make available (if someone asks) as pdfs. It's just information. It doesn't cost me anything other than time to send it to someone, so I don't think I should get paid for it. That goes doubly for if others pass these files around. I feel the same way about MP3s, etc. I'm listening to Spotify right now, and there are adds on it. Somehow people are getting paid from this (albums I've played on and/or had pieces on are on there... no, I haven't seen a red cent). I don't mind, so long as I'm not paying. I like the convenience. We now have the power to make information free, and more importantly, freely available. I think we should use that power.

Am I dirt poor? Hell yeah. I've got a great gig going on until June. After that, I have no idea what I'll be doing. Before this gig, I was working in a warehouse. If there are people as passionate about software as I am about music (I'm confident that there are), they'll get by in the same sort of ways.

Also, you point out that Open Office is free. Well, if - like NeoOffice - it suddenly weren't, would they also have to be paid for every version of NeoOffice, which is based on a free application? For that matter, why the hell aren't they now if NeoOffice is charging for a product based on theirs? Who is "they" in an open source, freeware world? When you start adding dollar figures to what is literally the free exchange of information, things get blurry real fast, because you're eventually going to have to base everything on something like faith.

I also am a musician/composer. It is not my main profession but I do get paid gigs locally. I have also done studio work on some bigger name acts in a few cities over the years.

I can understand sending a score perhaps. But what if the person is then using it to get a paid gig based on your music? If you create a piece of music, naturally you have a choice to give it a way for free or to charge for it. But if it is how you make a living, why would you not want to maximize getting paid for that which you create?

I often think there is a real difference between knowledge and the fruits of that knowledge. We have libraries and academia so that 'information' is free. Though really it isn't because somewhere someone got paid to do the research or write the study or teach the student or whatever.

The information for taking Java code and porting it to Cocoa code is free. Any one can sign up for free at both Apple and Oracle. They can download development tools. They can find Youtube videos and free courses to teach them how to do this. But if you took that time to do it, are you ok with not being paid for that effort and that time? And if you are ok with that, what if someone else chooses not to be? If you refuse to pay and not use it, that is fine. You are definitely not required to use NeoOffice for example. But if you take it, wouldn't that be stealing?

The Apache License for OpenOffice allows for reasonable payments to those who distribute the software with a support contract or make development changes so that it works in a special environment, like NeoOffice has done for OS X. Previously, they did not charge for it, but now that it must be ported and maintained as a Cocoa application under Apple's watchful eye, $10.00 for a license is incredibly reasonable and more than fair. I know from experience that such a project cost them much more time and energy than what they will ever hope to recoup in license sales. So a distinction again must be drawn between completely 'free' software as in no money involved ever or 'open source' software where the code is freely distributed, anyone can view it, tweak it, and fork it but according to the license there can be money charged.

Free software could still be closed source or open source. Paid software could still be closed or open source. I am a proponent of Open Source. I like knowing I can view the code and work with it if I so desire. That provides a big freedom for me. I also distribute freeware in various communities I am a part of. And I also have some paid applications as well.

I suspect I will not 'change' your mind, however, I felt it was important to clarify and discuss it with you further. We will have to agree to disagree amicably.

One reason to give away scores as pdfs is simply so that people will play them in gigs. It's really made things so much easier. I remember having to look through catalogues and basically guess at what a piece was going to be like if no one I knew had it. Now I've got a folder called "other people's scores." I'm not a member of ASCAP or BMG because of their support for things like the DMCA and CISPA, but I'm considering just biting the bullet and joining up for the money - that's where money would be made from people performing a piece, not from selling the physical copy. I also think that system is wrong and in need of reform, but for now it's what it is.

I do think information is free. That's all that software is. Charging for software is like charging for 1+1=2.

Sure, I'm ok with not being paid for the effort and time it takes to do my work if it's something I wanted to do and would have done anyway. That's how I generally operate. Sometimes I'm lucky and get paid from a scholarship, fellowship, etc., but that doesn't change the quality of my work or my desire to do it. I also know professional software developers who work on projects for free because it interests them.

The question of "stealing" is really a red herring. It's like if my elementary school math teacher asked someone for money if I taught them simple multiplication. Once the information is out there, it's out there. Just like home taping didn't destroy the music industry, photocopiers didn't destroy publishing, etc., freely distributing digital information won't destroy the future production of like information. I think that's just a fact, and I like it when people acknowledge that this is what's going to happen by not placing artificial price-tags on the ineffable.

I agree with you about Open Source. Yes, not all freeware is Open Source, but most of the good stuff is.

The thing is - and I think this is good - society and technology are working together in ways that the existing economy can't easily assimilate. We have the resources to eliminate poverty and hunger, and to educate all children. The current prevailing economic system is part of why those things don't happen. That's not directly related to this issue, but I think it's more support for making the case for not trying to force square pegs into an economy that only has round holes.

Just updated to Libre Office 4 last month. No problems so far. 100% free and open source.

I believe that both Libre Office and NeoOffice are forks of Open Office, so I'd assume they're fairly similar, but I haven't used NeoOffice myself and can't offer a direct comparison. I can just tell you that LibreOffice works fine for me.