Haven't we crossed this bridge already? We have a book page. No matter how (very very very) little the hourly rate may be for authors, it's still a commercial product.
Having said that, if someone were to write a significant NHibernate eBook and distribute it for free, I'd still expect to find it on the book page. By this same logic, I think the "significant" open source tools like FNH should be included in any list of add-on tools. In my mind, the distinction between open source / non-profit and for-profit is arbitrary. My two cents - Jason On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 7:51 AM, Fabio Maulo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hopefully we can have all opinions of all vendors here... > > Perhaps we (NH team) are worried about something that for you (vendors) is > not a problem. > > In practice we can give you a space in NH-Forge, you can blog a review of > your product and so on but what you can't do is start a commercial war and > involve us. > > If you can come in a sort of agreement, we are open to hear proposal about > how give more visibility to commercial products inside www.nhforge.org > > On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:33 AM, sbohlen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> NOTE: This is a continuation of a discussion branch that began in this >> thread of the NHUSERS group: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/nhusers/browse_thread/thread/166cd3b0e77c9e35/056321a3ec570d3b >> >> >> ---- >> >> Frans: >> >> Uh....I'm honestly a bit confused by your response as I think we're >> going to have to declare that we seem to be "in violent agreement" on >> (nearly) all of these points. >> >> From reading your comments, my concerns appear to be yours as well: I >> too am interested in an area of NHForge that can assist adopters of NH >> in finding commercial tools to improve their "NH experience" but in >> such a way that the NHForge site itself (and by extension the NH team) >> isn't directly involved in endorsing, ranking, commenting, or >> otherwise doing anything that would make it appear as if one vendor or >> tool was better/worse than any other vendor/tool (e.g., NH is able to >> maintain its neutrality). >> >> My list of 'principles' that I tried to enumerate in my post seemed >> (to me, at least) a reasonable set of guidelines to enable us to >> achieve exactly those goals (providing visibility for such offerings >> while maintaining neutrality). I think remaining neutral is 'good >> practice' in re: NH's relation with commercial tools/projects, but >> frankly I think its equally good practice in re: NH's relation with >> open-source and/or free tools/projects as well (e.g., I think it >> equally inappropriate for NH to be 'recommending' one OSS tool over >> another -- just as with commercial offerings). >> >> My suggestion was to find a way to list such products/vendors without >> appearing to 'endorse' or 'rank' them in any manner. >> >> I don't think I said (and I certainly didn't mean to inadvertently >> imply) that there is no place in the NH ecosystem for commercial >> offerings -- quite the reverse, in fact. I was merely trying to >> suggest that whatever manner is decided upon to attempt to increase >> 'visibility' of such things on the NHForge site be accomplished in >> such a way that NH's neutrality towards any of these offerings remain >> intact. >> >> I certainly recognize that one level of such imperfect neutrality will >> be instantly sacrificed merely by listing a product/vendor on the >> NHForge site, but that's why I indicated that it needed to be very >> clear to any vendor HOW to get their product listed should they want >> to do so (e.g., so that it wasn't made to appear that the listed >> vendors/products were in any way part of an "elite club" that over >> vendors were unable to 'join'). >> >> I hope this serves to clarify the intent of my comments (even if it >> appears I wasn't entirely clear in my prior content). >> >> -Steve B. >> >> > > > -- > Fabio Maulo > >
