> I am still uncomfortable with the Foundation paying for any open > source development. I think it distorts the community. Why is Rails > getting funds from the Foundation as opposed to anyone else? With the > bounty program, lots of projects could qualify, and there were enough > bounties that it was not a harsh first come, first served scenario > where you needed to make the gold rush. Here with Rails we are > providing funds just because that is the platform that Refresh chose. > Given that, Refresh chose a bad platform and I'm not keen for the > Foundation to have to fix it.
It was a platform chosen by Refresh and approved by the OIDF (we hired them). We invested in developing the membership software that is now effectively only compatible with a commercial product. > It seems ironic to pay money for something free so that we don't use a > commercial product that is being provided free. :-) Fair enough but it still doesn't address the issue around vendor neutrality which is what I'm trying to address here. - Scott _______________________________________________ board mailing list [email protected] http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board
