On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 22:01:49 -0800, "Robin Rowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > what i have found to be The GIMP's most charming quality is the lack of
> > funding.
> GIMP hasn't always lacked funding. The original Film Gimp sponsors (before
> it became Film Gimp) funded two GIMP developers for a year. That is, paid
> them full salaries to work on GIMP.
That's right. But Carol was partially right in her message: the GIMP
gets very little direct funding (actually, none except for the cases
that you mentioned, IIRC). Most of the funding is indirect.
As Carol mentioned, the hosting of the various GIMP pages is probably
the most significant contribution. Hosting of the GIMP CVS repository
and Bugzilla as part of the GNOME project is probably the other big
contribution. Besides this, the indirect funding comes from some
employers who allow a few GIMP developers to work on the GIMP from time
to time. Or, as in my case, some employers who tolerate that their
employees spend a part of their spare time on the GIMP as long as the
"normal" work is getting done.
In the end, I think that the GIMP gets a rather small amount of funding,
direct or indirect, compared to some other products or projects.
As I wrote in a previous message, I think that there are not that many
active developers (i.e., people who spend a significant amount of time
working on the code, which is different from the contributors like
myself who spend some time on side activities such as the bug database
and contribute patches from time to time). Maybe I am underestimating
the effort that many people put into the GIMP, but I would guess that
the total contribution of all GIMP developers is equivalent to less than
five full-time developers.
Gimp-developer mailing list