wine-devel at shemesh.biz
Sat May 7 01:39:27 CDT 2005
Tom Wickline wrote:
>On 5/3/05, Dimitrie O. Paun <dpaun at rogers.com> wrote:
>>Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
>>However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't
>>set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here
>>is what I propose:
>> 1. The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?)
>> 2. It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly
>> 3. Any list has an order by definition, this one should be
>> ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
>Here is my proposal...
>1) a token monetary fee of around $10,000 per year.
>2) at least 1,000 lines of code or some major contributions to documentation.
>3) a link back to winehq.org from there site and not twenty pages into
>4) a clear and thought out business plan (there company goal) and have
>links to it.
>5) they agree to be bound by the LGPL license and to give back all
>code changes that apply under this license.
>6) anyone found in contempt of the LGPL will be banned from all future
>7) if a banned party wants re-instatement they must pay a fine of
>$25,000 and post a written apology to the community for there actions.
>8) each party should contribute to the "Wine party fund" to fund
Before going into elaborate schemes here, I suggest that everyone
consider the following points:
1. Sure, commercial companies have something to gain from being listed
on the WineHQ page, but so does Wine.
2. If I, as a business owner, am going to be charged more than a token
amount, I had better get a receipt. Otherwise the actual cost to me is
about double the amount I pay Wine. I don't mind if it's 50$ or 100$,
but more then that, and I'd want it as a deductible expense. As Wine is
not a legally existing body, however, there is no one to issue said receipt.
3. On the flip side, if Wine is going to be receiving such amounts, it
will have to report them to some tax authority. Who will do the
reporting, and how?
4. If we are going to go into 8 steps programs, a contract had better be
involved. Creating one costs money. Keeping it enforced costs money.
This money, a.k.a. "overhead", had better come from somewhere.
5. More importantly than money, keeping the contract and money matters
enforced requires human supervision. This means that someone who could
really spend their time hacking wine will need to make sure that the
commercial companies adhere to our standards.
I really suggest we adhere to KISS - Keep It Simple. I actually liked
the "hackers rating" idea. If a company is well known among the wine
hackers, they'll vote for it. If not, list it alphabetically at the end
of the former list. As I said before, the token cost was meant mostly to
make sure that the company is still alive, but as Andrew said, sending
an email once a year to make sure someone responds also works, and does
not get anyone in trouble with any tax authority.
Having said all of that, I think I'll actually go with Brian's idea. Let
him phrase the criteria. Unlike me, he does not have a commercial
interest in Wine.
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html
More information about the wine-devel