On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 04:09:52PM +0200, Newsbite wrote: > Hi, > > I have contacted some of you before (well, at least, I've spoken to some on IIRC). > While it was for an article about freenet at the time, the issuing conversations > also mentionned the financial needs of freenet. As it's mentionned on the freenet > site, this remains a somewhat uncertain issue, especially in regard to the > (continuing) fulltime work of Toad.
On the other hand, so far so good. My payment has been delayed a few times, but it has always been made up. I have been working since september last year from the current funding arrangements, paid one month in advance. > > I suggested then, that it might be a good idea to seek out additional sponsors, be > it non-profit organisations, or even commercial compagnies. In return, we could set > up modest banners on the site (I mean the freenet site on the www, NOT anything on > freenet itself) or we could make a 'sponsor page' with links, or little banners, or > a combination of both, depending on the level of sponsoring. (One could argue that, > if a compagny would offer to sponor 1000 bucks a month for a year, it could deserve > a banner on the main page, while $5 for one month would at most be worth a link on > the sponors-page, or something to that regard). We should make a page listing subscribers or major sponsors who want to be listed. This is agreed. However, banner adverts, or accepting cash from profit making corporations, might jeopardize our income from our core sponsors i.e. the users. > > In general, this proposal was met very positively, though (as always ;-) there were > a few remarks too: > > - for instance, the possibility that freenet could associate itself with a compagny > with 'bad image', which would rub it off on freenet. > > A valid remark, though it should be noted that it's difficult to imagine a compagny > doing that. I mean, apart from promoting and selling illegal things, which no legal > compagnies exist for, what could possibly really damage freenet that badly? > Presumably, Pr0n Inc. is at issue, but, seen the fact that freenet will rather > undermine their (commercial) business then sustain it, I think it's rather unlikely > to happen. And, in fact, as long as it helps pay one or maybe several developers, > and seen the temporal nature, I wouldn't mind to much. Heck, I would even accept > money from the RIAA! ;-) What irony wouldn't that be! It's the possibility of bias. We need to maintain our coding independance, and be seen to maintain it. Besides which I suspect that many people here would disagree with your assertion about the moral nature of corporations :) > > In any case, if some sort of moderator for the job would be needed, I'm > volunteering, and if Pr0n-compagnies sponsoring would be deemed 'unproper', so be > it. But we can all agree that organisations like the EFF would be prime candidates, > and I think there is a definite potential for free-speech and IT/tech organisations > and compagnies. Maybe enough for a second developer, who knows? Indeed. Some of the non-profit organizations may be interested in funding us, as Ian has occasionally pointed out. He is looking into the matter. > > If anyone (meaning; those that have any say in the matter ;-) is interested, I'm > willing to take this job of sponsor-seeking&handling on me, because I'm fully aware > that it's more of a manager issue then a developers'one. (which was another remark > made; that developers don't have time for such a thing). Since I'm part-time manager > and part-time IT free-lance writer, I have no problem with it. > > So, that was basically it. I have a bit more detailed idea about the how and what, > but I think that's better discussed more directly, instead of here. > > Sincerely, > > Newsbite -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
