On 11/10/2014 08:26 PM, Brian Millar wrote:
> >"So I'm thinking this could be a good thing if we could get a paid
> developer who knows RT-audio coding on board in time for the big 2.0
> effort."
>
> I know many people will disagree with me but I feel like this is
> something that really goes against the FOSS mentality. I think Free
> Software is about
Then you follow some very unorthodox definition of Free Software. Free
software is about free as in freedom, not free as in beer. RMS himself
has stated he has nothing against charging money for free software. FWIW.
A paid developer would not change anything when it comes to software
freedom. LMMS would still be free of charge, the source code would still
be open and GPL-licensed.
> more than features and I think the fact that everyone who currently
> works on LMMS do so because they want to
Why do you assume a paid developer wouldn't be working on LMMS because
they want to?
> and not because they are paid is a feature in itself and one we should
> be proud of. Personally I'd rather have less features and still know
> that it was 100% community driven,
Why do you assume a paid developer wouldn't be a part of the community?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comprehensive Server Monitoring with Site24x7.
Monitor 10 servers for $9/Month.
Get alerted through email, SMS, voice calls or mobile push notifications.
Take corrective actions from your mobile device.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=154624111&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
LMMS-devel mailing list
LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
