On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 08:45, Caleb Tennis wrote: > Hi Kurt, > > This is an awesome GLEP idea, and I'm glad it finally got put into written > words. The one suggestion I have, which I am sure is up for a large amount > of criticism, is that I think Gentoo should charge a fee for the use of this > tree. This is, in my opinion, a premium service, and a I believe it should > come with a premium price, even if it's as low as 5 dollars per quarter. > > But maybe I'm totally off base here.
I won't support any fee being charged for access to a stable Gentoo tree. The work by Gentoo developers -- my work and the work of many others -- should be available at no cost to the public. That is the general expectation of everyone who contributes to this project, and should be respected. Let's not fall into the trap of charging for something just because we can. We are not in need of the money. I know that you have only the best intentions in wanting to charge $5 per quarter for access to a stable tree, and it certainly wouldn't prevent any company from using a stable tree. But the reason why this fee is a bad idea is that many who contribute to this project do so with the desire of making their work available to the public at absolutely no cost. Requiring a fee for access to software developed by this project, no matter how small, and regardless of how pure our intentions and how noble a purpose for which any such fee might be charged, causes people to question whether the goal of the project is really charitable in nature. I learned this the hard way when we tried to start Gentoo Games and use the revenue to "support" the project. All those involved had the best possible intentions, but the effort wasn't in the best interests of Gentoo as a _free software project_. What helps Gentoo financially doesn't necessarily help the project. Financially, we're already very well-supported by our community. Yes, if we launched some money-making effort, we could have generated a lot of revenue very quickly, transitioned to a not-for-profit corporation and applied for 501(c)(3) status by now. But we would have had to compromise our principles to do this, and transitioning to a not-for-profit is about protecting our principles, not making compromises. In this, the way we go about reaching the goal of "not-for-profit" just is as important as the goal itself. I don't mean to sound preachy, but any amount charged for access to our software is too much. Regards, Daniel -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
