Yes, no AI is now a feature

One of the comments on the announcement of LibreOffice 26.8 was a simple question: “So, no AI is now a feature?”

LibreOffice does not reject artificial intelligence out of hand, but an office suite used by tens of millions of people – in schools, hospitals, public bodies, law firms and thousands of other organisations – will not add a feature to its default configuration until that feature can be delivered under the conditions defined by the project in accordance with its principles.

User-controlled execution. The user must be able to choose where inference takes place: on the local computer, on an infrastructure directly controlled by the user, or on a service chosen independently by the user. A default setting that silently redirects to a single provider is not a choice.

No content may leave the computer without authorisation. The content of documents is a user’s asset and, in many implementations, is also legally protected material: medical records, case files, tender documents and student data. Transmission must be the result of a user’s decision and not behaviour carried out in the background by the application.

No telemetry of any kind. LibreOffice does not collect usage data, and this must also apply to AI features.

No dependence on a single provider. An integration that only works with a single company’s API is a lock-in mechanism, regardless of how it is described in the release notes. Interfaces should be open and implementable by multiple backends.

No compromises on format. Generated content must be in ODF format, just like any other content, and must retain its structure, styles and semantics. An assistant that generates documents in a proprietary format perpetuates content lock-in.

Entirely optional. It must be installable, removable, and absent from the user interface for those who do not wish to use it, including administrators deploying the software across thousands of workstations who, due to company policy, do not authorise its use.

Where we stand today

In light of this list, there is no integration that meets all the requirements and that could be deployed, enabled by default, and supported throughout the entire lifecycle of a release. This is an assessment of the current state of the technology and the solutions based on it, and not a judgement on the value of the sector.

In the meantime, users who wish to use AI features can install one of the available extensions, which can be found either on the LibreOffice extensions website or distributed independently. Most connect to a locally running model via Ollama, LM Studio or another OpenAI-compatible endpoint, which means the document never leaves the computer.

These are third-party extensions at various stages of maturity, developed and maintained by their respective authors rather than by The Document Foundation. Users and administrators should assess them as they would any third-party component, checking whether a cloud endpoint is configured and what the provider does with the data it receives. The extension mechanism offers AI functionality to those who want it, without any consequences for all other users.

Why our motivations are different

The reason our position differs from that of the dominant suites has almost nothing to do with the technology.

For a company that sells subscriptions, an AI assistant justifies a price increase and strengthens the case for keeping all documents within its own infrastructure. The functionality and the business model reinforce each other, so integration is not only attractive but almost mandatory.

The Document Foundation is a not-for-profit organisation. There are no subscription tiers to protect, no upsells, no data to monetise. This does not make us wiser than others, but it means we can take the time needed to decide whether something is genuinely useful for our users, as we are not driven by quarterly results.

What lies ahead

The criteria we have listed do not amount to a definitive rejection. The AI sector is evolving rapidly; on-premises inference is becoming manageable on standard hardware; and open models are improving much faster than most of us had anticipated. Should an approach emerge that meets all the conditions, we will evaluate it very carefully.

Until then, there will be no AI of any kind in the default installation; extensions will be available for those who wish to integrate AI features, and we will closely monitor where the technology is actually heading.

One week of LibreOffice 26.8 – The stats!

One week ago, we announced LibreOffice 26.8, our brand new major update. It’s full of new features, and has many improvements to compatibility and performance too. So, what has happened in the week since then? Let’s check out some statistics…

1,031,162 downloads

This is the highest number of downloads in the first week of any LibreOffice release! These are just stats from our official downloads page, of course – many Linux users will have acquired the new release via their distribution’s package repositories.

50,061 views, shares and likes on social media

Combining our Mastodon, Bluesky, X/Twitter (not used so much now) and Facebook posts about the announcement, and all the likes, shares, views and comments, we get over 50,000. Thanks to everyone who spread the word on social media! 😊

20,918 video views

Our “LibreOffice 26.8 – New Features” video (shown below), has subtitle translations in 32 languages, thanks to our worldwide community, who localised the video on this page. (The video is also available on PeerTube.)

Please confirm that you want to play a YouTube video. By accepting, you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

Many thanks to our worldwide community of volunteers, and certified developers, for all their work on this release 😊

LibreOffice project and community recap: August 2026

Monthly recap banner

Here’s our summary of updates, events and activities in the LibreOffice project in the last four weeks – click the links to learn more…

  • We released LibreOffice 26.8, our latest major update, with tabbed UI improvements, professional typography, deeper support for the world’s writing systems, and no built-in artificial intelligence.

LibreOffice 26.8 banner

  • To accompany the release, we made a video showcasing some of the user-facing new features – with subtitle translations in 25 languages, thanks to our worldwide community! (The video is also available on PeerTube.)

Please confirm that you want to play a YouTube video. By accepting, you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

  • Meanwhile, the Austrian Military (Bundesheer) has moved 16,000 PCs from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice – and we talked to the people behind the migration, to find out how they did it. Check out part 1 and part 2 of the interview.

Bundesheer logo

Karl-Heinz Gruner

  • Extensions add extra features to LibreOffice, and we talked to Bora Yarkın about a new one which lets you control a LibreOffice Impress presentation from your phone or any other device with a modern web browser.

Impress Remote logo

LibreOffice Conference 2026 logo

Community Member Monday banner

  • There’s a lot of talk about “Digital Sovereignty” – but what does that actually mean? One vital part is an open document platform – like ODF.

ODF logo

  • LibreOffice is a worldwide project made up of hundreds of people: volunteers, developers at ecosystem companies, and the 18-person team at The Document Foundation (the non-profit entity that coordinates the project and community). What has the team been working on recently? Check this post to find out.

TDF team

LibreOffice tabbed interface

  • How is LibreOffice funded? The vast majority of funding comes in the form of donations – mostly from end-users, but also occasionally from companies and organisations that use LibreOffice.

Rohan Singh

Like what we do? Support LibreOffice with a donation – or join our community and help to make LibreOffice even better! Also keep in touch – follow us on Mastodon, Bluesky, Reddit and Facebook.

Video: New features in LibreOffice 26.8

On August 26 we released LibreOffice 26.8. Here’s a video highlighting some of the user-facing new features and improvements, with subtitle translations in over 25 languages, thanks to our worldwide community! (Note: the video is also available on PeerTube.)

Please confirm that you want to play a YouTube video. By accepting, you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.

How LibreOffice is funded

LibreOffice 26.8 is the first version to display a donation banner in the Launch Centre. This document explains the reasons behind this decision and provides information on The Document Foundation’s sustainability model.

All figures are taken from the financial statements of The Document Foundation Stiftung, based in Berlin, and have been published on the website for every year of the foundation’s existence since its registration.

TDF revenue in 2025

Total revenue amounted to approximately 2.2 million euros.

Of this, over 90 per cent comes from donations, and the remainder almost entirely from the sale of LibreOffice via Microsoft and Apple’s online stores, where the price is set to cover the costs of maintaining the applications on those platforms.

It is worth noting that the same versions available on Microsoft’s and Apple’s online stores can be downloaded freely – and therefore free of charge – from the LibreOffice website.

Over 90 per cent of donations come from private individuals, and less than 10 per cent from public bodies and companies. Therefore, although the suite is widely used by companies and public bodies, it is funded almost entirely by private individuals who contribute small sums according to their means.

How much did TDF spend in 2025

Total expenditure amounted to approximately 1.5 million euros.

Seventy-five per cent of this expenditure was allocated to staff salaries and social security contributions, as well as consultancy contracts. Today, the foundation employs 18 people, 11 of whom have contributed to software development or other related activities, such as quality control.

It is worth emphasising this proportion clearly. Three-quarters of the TDF’s expenditure goes on staff, and the largest share is accounted for by development work, community building and education on the themes of software freedom, open standards and digital sovereignty.

Donations are channelled into constructive activities, rather than administrative costs.

In the past, a significant proportion of development work was awarded to companies that submitted the best bid in response to a tender, but this strategy has changed, and it was decided to bring development expertise in-house so as to steer the software’s evolution and share knowledge with the community.

The surplus in 2025

The surplus is not left unused but is reinvested in the growth already underway: three developers were hired during 2026 and two more will be hired shortly. In addition, various marketing and community development projects are funded from the same source.

The foundation’s expenditure does not follow a uniform pattern relative to its income. The recruitment process takes months, and if income is received before new staff are hired, a surplus will arise that represents planned work rather than unspent money.

TDF also maintains reserves, with the aim of covering at least one year’s operating costs. This figure, of course, increases year on year.

For an organisation with a single predominant source of income, this represents a minimum target. Indeed, a foundation that employs 18 people and supports a community of thousands has obligations towards them that cannot be suspended if income from donations declines.

Why this banner, and why now?

TDF is in good financial health. However, when compared with similar projects, it is significantly underfunded.

Thunderbird, an open-source email client supported almost entirely by donations, received $10.3 million in 2024 – 19 per cent more than the previous year – from over 335,000 individual donors. The Wikimedia Foundation operates on an even larger scale.

LibreOffice has a user base comparable to or larger than that of Thunderbird and a more extensive source code, covering six applications, dozens of file formats and 120 languages, whilst generating revenue amounting to around one-fifth of Thunderbird’s.

The gap is significant because the market has changed. Most people compare LibreOffice with Microsoft 365, and this creates expectations regarding availability on the web, in the cloud and on mobile devices that a desktop-focused development effort is unable to meet.

TDF has published a roadmap for web, cloud and mobile development. Delivering this within a timeframe that keeps pace with market developments requires greater development capacity than current revenue can support.

The banner serves to partially bridge this gap. It appears in the Start Centre – the screen that appears when the suite is launched without any documents open – and is displayed periodically, for example at monthly intervals or following an update. The banner links to the donations page and does not appear anywhere else in the software.

What the banner is not

LibreOffice contains no adverts, does not collect telemetry data and does not require any account, subscription or activation. No features are reserved for paying users. The suite does not transmit documents to a remote service and does not require network access to function. LibreOffice 26.8 contains no generative artificial intelligence features.

Maintaining each of these features incurs costs, as each represents a source of revenue that the foundation has chosen not to exploit.

Advertising-supported software is funded by attention; subscription-based software is funded by the ability to revoke access; and data-driven software is funded by surveillance. TDF has ruled out all three of these options, leaving only the possibility of donations.

The problem with companies

The imbalance between individual and corporate donations is a specific problem that the foundation would like to rectify.

Companies and public bodies deploy LibreOffice on a large scale — in some cases on tens of thousands of computers — and derive a direct commercial benefit from it. Under the terms of the Mozilla Public Licence v2, they have the right to do so, and no one intends to revoke this right.

Unfortunately, very few of these organisations contribute financially to the project. The result is that private individuals are, in effect, subsidising the infrastructure costs of organisations that have considerably greater resources than they do.

Organisations that rely on LibreOffice have at least three ways of supporting it. They can make a donation to The Document Foundation, or purchase an enterprise version from a company within the LibreOffice ecosystem that offers a Service Level Agreement (SLA), professional support and security updates for a period of between three and five years, or pay a company or an individual to develop specific features tailored to their needs.

All these methods support the software, but none is used on a scale that is even remotely comparable to what one might expect given the widespread adoption of the product.

In fact, during 2026, the average monthly number of LibreOffice downloads approached one million, and there were nearly 600 million visits to the website from which updates are downloaded. Based on these two figures, even a very conservative estimate puts the number of LibreOffice users worldwide at over 100 million.

Why ODF is the only document format compatible with digital sovereignty

Digital sovereignty is usually discussed in terms of where servers are located and which company holds the contract. Both matter less than the format in which documents are written.

A document is not a piece of paper

The habit of thinking of a digital document as a sheet of paper is understandable and wrong. A sheet of paper carries its own content. Anyone who can read the language can read the page, with no equipment, no permission and no intermediary. A digital document carries no content at all until software interprets it. The file is a set of instructions, and what appears on screen is the result of a program executing those instructions. Change the program and the result may change with it.

This is why documents produced in one application so often look wrong in another: bullet points shift, tables lose their proportions, headings render differently. The content is present. The document, strictly speaking, is not.

The format is the specification that tells software how to perform that interpretation. Whoever controls the format therefore controls what the document means, how faithfully it can be reproduced, and for how long.

What makes a format open

Openness is not a marketing description. It has established criteria, set out in instruments such as the Open Definition and the European Interoperability Framework, and used by public administrations to assess formats for procurement. Four conditions matter most.

The specification must be published in full and freely available. Nobody should need a licence, a fee or a patent settlement to implement it. The format must be usable by anyone for any purpose, without discrimination between users, applications or business models. And it must be governed by a body independent of any single vendor, so that future versions are decided in public rather than in a company’s product roadmap.

These conditions exist for a practical reason. They are what guarantees that a document written today can still be opened in thirty years by software nobody has yet written.

ODF meets these conditions

The Open Document Format was developed in the open under OASIS, the international standards consortium, and became an OASIS standard in 2005. It cleared its Draft International Standard ballot at ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 in May 2006 with unanimous approval and was published as ISO/IEC 26300 that November. The specification is public, royalty-free, versioned, and maintained by a technical committee whose work is a matter of record. Version 1.4 was approved by OASIS in December 2025.

ODF is not the LibreOffice format. It is implemented by a range of applications from different suppliers, and any developer may implement it without asking anyone. LibreOffice uses it natively, which is a consequence of the format’s openness rather than a claim of ownership over it.

OOXML does not

OOXML, the format underlying DOCX, XLSX and PPTX files, carries an ISO number. It was granted one in 2008 through a fast-track procedure whose conduct is now part of the documented history of standards governance.

The number has not produced the effects a standard is meant to produce. The specification runs to several thousand pages, which discourages implementation. It exists in two conformance classes: a Strict variant, which other developers could reasonably support, and a Transitional variant, which preserves legacy behaviours and is what Microsoft Office writes by default. The variant in daily use by hundreds of millions of people is therefore the one that only its originator implements completely. The cleaner variant that competitors could support is largely unused, and has even disappeared from some versions.

A specification that a single implementation alone can satisfy is, in functional terms, a proprietary format with a standardisation certificate attached. This is not an accusation of bad faith. It is a description of what the format does regardless of anyone’s intentions, and it is the reason the distinction is structural rather than moral.

Why this decision comes first

An organisation that adopts a European cloud provider, negotiates strong contractual protections and hosts everything within its own jurisdiction has achieved nothing for sovereignty if its documents remain in a format only one foreign supplier can read correctly. Server location, hosting jurisdiction and procurement clauses are all downstream of the format decision. An organisation that cannot open its own archives without a supplier’s permission is not sovereign over them, wherever those archives happen to be stored.

The exposure grows with time. An individual with a distorted layout has an inconvenience. A ministry holding two decades of legislative drafts, land registries and court records in a format it cannot independently interpret has delegated custody of the public record to a private company, and cannot withdraw that delegation without converting everything it owns.

Who has already acted

Germany’s Deutschland-Stack, the federal framework for sovereign public digital infrastructure, names ODF and PDF/UA as the mandated document formats, to the exclusion of proprietary alternatives. The IT Planning Council, the body through which the federal government and the Länder coordinate public administration information technology, has committed to ODF. NATO and the European Commission have mandated it.

The decision is not a European one. Taiwan adopted ODF as a national standard in 2009 and has required it as the government’s document format since January 2015, a policy its Ministry of Digital Affairs describes in terms of software equality, digital sovereignty and sustainable development. Brazil has required federal executive bodies to follow the e-PING interoperability framework, built on open standards, since 2005. Public administrations on almost every continent have taken comparable decisions over the past two decades.

What has changed recently is the reasoning. The case for moving away from proprietary office software was once made primarily as a cost saving. It is now made as the preservation of independence, meaning the ability of a public body to act without asking permission from a foreign supplier. Several of the migrations announced in the past year were presented in exactly those terms, with the cost argument set aside. At least one European defence organisation has stated that its decision was not about money at all.

The alternative to lock-in already exists, is mature, is an international standard, and is a legal requirement in several European jurisdictions.

Further reading

Start here

Format comparison and lock-in

Policy and adoption

Technical reference