twickline at gmail.com
Mon May 9 16:54:13 CDT 2005
On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh <wine-devel at shemesh.biz> wrote:
> This is actually a very good point in favor of not charging money at
> all. If you charge money, you create obligation. That's the way the
> legal system works. If you do not, you can easily delist any known LGPL
It could be looked at as a minimum donation request, and any funds
raised should go to the WPF.
> If that doesn't convince you, then try this for size. If we do charge
> 10K/yr, Lingnu will not be listed there. It's simply not worth it for
> me. If ANYONE is going to be listed there, then, it will be some huge
> company, with very little actual Wine involvement. Being as it is that
> Wine would like the commercial vendors listed too, I think that's a
> lose-lose. Don't you?
I believe giving away the only resource that winehq.org has for
generating revenue for the WPF is insane. The way it is now we have a
pay-pal account for donations and this is the only way any funds make
it into this account. I think we should explore ways to raise money
for future Wineconf's and other worth while expenditures. While 10k/yr
may be a high target 100/yr is a bare minimum at best.
Or do you really think that Lingnu is going to
> hold back code from Wine?
No I don't, I never have and as as Ive already said before I believe
everyone in this discussion is responsible and supporters of OSS.
About what will happen if a rouge company shows up?
I for see winehq.org setting up a page like PearPC and asking the
community for help. But some people here think we should have trust
and faith in people and not be pessimistic like myself.
And on the out come of this discussion, read the entirety of this
thread and apply "bays theorem" and a result will soon follow.
More information about the wine-devel