On Tuesday 17 July 2007 12:39, Arno Lehmann wrote: > Hi, > > 17.07.2007 12:23,, Kern Sibbald wrote:: > > On Tuesday 17 July 2007 11:00, Arno Lehmann wrote: > ... > >> The argument that the code would probable never be complete is, excuse > >> me, nonsense. I know no big software project that claims that its code > >> is complete in the sense that it will not be necessary to further > >> develop it. > > > > My wording was probably not very clear. This user was saying he did not want > > to donate for a particular coding project (feature) because he had no > > assurance that that particular project would be completed and he did not know > > how much it really cost or how the money was used -- i.e. he has no > > confidence in the integrity of the developers. > > Ok, that's quite different to what I understood. > > I must admit that I can understand the user much better, now. > > > If that is how users feel, even a tiny minority, then I prefer to let them > > contract with a company if they want to fund a particular feature. > > Obviously, in this case a company would have been the right business > partner. > > > Once a company is formed, I expect that the nature of things are that there > > will be far fewer contributions of code -- that is how human nature seems to > > work (according to everything I have read on the subject). So I am counting > > on the company and myself to pickup where the project leaves off. > > That might be. But I expect that some of the developers today might > work for that company from time to tme, and thus would be better > rewarded for similar effort. Again a win-win-situation :-)
Yes, I see it as a win all around, except for the big commercial backup software vendors, but then what I hear is that their users are quite unhappy about their fees and their fee structures. Often the vendors are rather arogant believing that the customer is locked into their solution -- we'll see. I remember this from the 1980's -- it was the same argument that the big CAD companies raised against Autodesk (and AutoCAD). > > ... > > A lot of people will still be getting the software and the binaries for free. > > They may or may not want to donate -- the Bacula project and the Bacula > > company are quite separate. > > Which some people will not easily understand. Yes, it is a bit different from other projects where the project has absolute control over the software. This is a much more Open Source approach -- and I hope it succeeds. In certain respects, it is how service companies like IBM are approaching and embrasing Open Source. > > > I had hoped that donations might be important, > > but I was wrong. After the company is created, I expect they will be even > > fewer and farther between. > > > > If all goes well with the company, hopefully, it will fund a lot of things > > that the project cannot fund. > > Well, then let's hope the company goes well! Thanks. > > Arno > > > -- > Arno Lehmann > IT-Service Lehmann > www.its-lehmann.de > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Bacula-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
