Hello, > From: Guy Waterval [mailto:waterval....@gmail.com]
> I think it is dangerous when "public" funds support a > developper in a free > project in which companies are associated. Just today I had a > discussion > with a Windows user saying he did not like the free projects > because he > considered that in these models, the volunteers are the > losers and people > who can commercially exploit the final product without > reverse anything to > the project itself, the winners. It is a quite common opinion > among Windows > users with whom I have the opportunity to discuss, probably > because they > haven't the habit of free projects. > This is why I find preferable (but this is only my personal > opinion) that a > freelance developer should be paid only for his specific > mission, defined > by donors, and should not be "integrated and under the control of the > project" for questions of independence and transparency. This should > reduced the desagreable comments, I think. I understand what you're saying, but a detail I do not understand: Why should it be relevant whether companies are integrated or not? It is clear to me where the problem may be if you paid developers in freelance projects for any work, and not for concrete work, paid for - but why should it, _for that Contemplation_ be important whether collaborate companies or not? Greetings, Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
