Have you tested with other applications? IIRC, OpenOffice was, erroneously, using the WinAscent/Descent values of the OS/2 table to compute line height, where it should be using the TypoAscent/Descent values. So I think you should reported that as an OpenOffice bug, and use the negative leading if it works for you (I myself stopped using office suites long ago, it is just to fragile and unpredictable for me to use, if I were you, I'd go with some TeX based solution; LaTeX, ConTeXt or even Texinfo depending on your particular needs).

I'd try some standard application first, e.g. Gedit, if it gives the same interline spacing, then it likely that how the font is designed, but in professional typography, you always adjust line spacing your self and not relaying on font embedded values.

Khaled, good point about Gedit, although it returned (to my eyes and at my screen def.) the same leading value as OOo does. I know about setting the leading, but I was not positive as setting a negative value. Usually the fonts have a minium default leading to increase according to the needs.

J. Tillman, no I did not know that (I thought "compact" was referring to the font with a different "tracking") so, thank you for your information, Charis SIL is one of the fonts in question (the other fonts are tex gyre fonts: Latin modern, Heros (copy of URW nimbus sans L) and Adventor (copy of URW Gothic L).

When I compare these fonts leading with others, their default leading is huge. I was wondering why?