Dave Neary wrote:

> I would like to improve on this relationship, and I know that Federico at sourcewear feels the same. For my part, I'd like to see better products, and more products,

I'd like to be able to order one of those Pixel Pusher shirts. The plain white with Wilbur is boring IMO.

> as well as formalising the cut we get from merchandising (this is currently an informal arrangement, I think that we should get an engagement on paper).

Yes.  This is very important.

> For their part, they would like to continue having their logo on the arm (which I'm OK with)

How does the Gimp benefit from this? Does WalMart get to put their logo on the Fruit of the Loom shirts they sell? Of course not.

Personally, I think their logo has no place being on the shirt in any permanent form. I'd definitely look elsewhere for a shirt vendor if they're insistent on their logo appearing on any of the Gimp product. I will help you find one if need be.

> , and they would like to be our official merchandiser
If you can pan out everything mentioned above/below equitably, then I don't see a problem with this.

> - that is, have a place in the sidebar on every page, and a place of prominence on the front page.

Once again... how does the Gimp benefit from such an arrangement? Webspace comes at a premium in the industry I work in. Of course, the Gimp isn't a company, but that's not to say we shouldn't be selective who we contract to do our merchandising.

> That's why I'm writing here. Is this arrangement OK with people?


I honestly don't mean to be so negative, but what you've proposed just doesn't look good at all.

Eric P.
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to