On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 01:36:20PM -0400, Josh Grosse wrote:
On 2015-07-08 13:04, Jorge Gabriel Lopez Paramount wrote:
I would like to say only this: if people to not want big companies
meddling with OpenBSD as it has been happening with Linux better its
users support it.
Jorge,
Its users should support it, yes. True. And many of us do. However,
the statement might not be completely accurate. To the best of my
knowledge:
1. Contributors do not influence technical direction, instead, the
funds are allocated based on Project need. This is per the
description at http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/donations.html and
the description at http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
2. Any code contribution requires the approval of multiple Project
members -- developers with commit authority -- in order to be committed,
and all commits are subject to Project review.
3. All code commits are done publicly, via CVS. That's per stated
policy in http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html and is also pursuant to the
Open in the Project's name.
Yes, it is possible for a financial contributor to influence development.
Specifically, hardware support may be influenced by contributing sample
hardware to an interested developer. I have also heard that certain
beverages may have a minor influential effect.*
---
* I would consider this a social contribution rather than a financial one.
Though, some single malt scotches have reached a price where one may
require both Financial Advisers and Investment Counselors in order to
obtain them.**
** Yes, Macallan 18, I'm looking at you.
In general, I would say: If you don't trust the developers to not let
companies meddle with OpenBSD, then you shouldn't trust them, and
their OS anyways.
Kind regards,
Thomas
