Re: Formation of Gnome-user-foundation
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:01:22PM +, Alan Cox wrote: On Llu, 2005-03-14 at 13:11, Daniel Veillard wrote: If you have a high level of income, then your bugs matters If you are part of our club, then your bugs matters IMHO Its just a variant on the bounties. If Novell can do bounties why can't 50 users get together and issue a bounty on a matter that annoys them. Is it any different to a business saying to Red Hat or Novell We need XYZ then we could do 5000 desktops. I think there was an agreement on no more bounties, je are just finishing to ventilate the existing bounty fund, but not accept new bounties funding. I agree it shouldn't control development or dictate to volunteers what feature to add but providing it is seperated clearly (as with any other user group) then is there a problem ? To me the problem was pay 25$ and be part of our powerful club which looks to me the last thing to do to try to grow GNOME in new areas like Africa and Asia. More bugzilla triaging is good, doing more analysis on user input is good, generating upfront user segregation on income is really bad. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Formation of Gnome-user-foundation
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 18:44 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I really like the slogan of Ubuntu: Humanity to others. It gives me a valid reason for doing opensource development. An important reason. The slogan is a good one. Sad to say, Ubuntu doesn't entirely follow the implied philosophy: it distributes non-free programs with its version of GNU/Linux. I hope that Ubuntu's conduct won't undermine the persuasive effects of the slogan. I'm not convinced that the distribution of some non-free softwares is currently undermining the persuasive effets of the slogan. Nevertheless it's good that people, like yourself, care about and guard the principles of free software. That way, I as a developer can focus on development. Personally, I've been greatly influenced by the free software movement. But I'm also convinced that there's other software projects who aren't pure free software but still worth considering. I'm the technical type of person who cares about humanity. There's different ways to be humane. I know free software is one way. I am, however, also convinced that various other licensing schemes can also help being humane. If you find that slogan resonates with you, I would guess that your views are closer to the free software movement than to the open source philosophy. The free software movement says that we as software developers have a moral obligation to respect the freedom of the users of our software. GNOME is a prime example of the free software philosophy. It was founded specifically to prevent non-free software from making inroads into our community. If you support the free software movement, one easy way to help us is by saying free software rather than open source. Next time, I'll call it humane software. Then everybody will be happy. I hope -- Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos home: me at freax dot org gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com http://www.freax.be, http://www.freax.eu.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Formation of Gnome-user-foundation
This would only be a way to enhance the development of Gnome not to replace it. I do agree with you that this would be bad for the developing world, we could have a system where there was a minimun of 3$ annual fee and prefered 30$ but you could contribute any amount you liked, the point would be not to dictate what core developers are doing that would be stupit, the point would be to get people that are on the fringe to develop more for Gnome and they can do that because they don't have to worry about working to much because they will get payed. Also your logic works both ways, imagine people in asia and south america getting 1000$ dollers to work on Gnome. Olafur Arason Ps these ideas are more inclined with left anarchism and gift system that capitalism so we are not talking about segregation. On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:16:24 -0500, Daniel Veillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 04:01:22PM +, Alan Cox wrote: On Llu, 2005-03-14 at 13:11, Daniel Veillard wrote: If you have a high level of income, then your bugs matters If you are part of our club, then your bugs matters IMHO Its just a variant on the bounties. If Novell can do bounties why can't 50 users get together and issue a bounty on a matter that annoys them. Is it any different to a business saying to Red Hat or Novell We need XYZ then we could do 5000 desktops. I think there was an agreement on no more bounties, je are just finishing to ventilate the existing bounty fund, but not accept new bounties funding. I agree it shouldn't control development or dictate to volunteers what feature to add but providing it is seperated clearly (as with any other user group) then is there a problem ? To me the problem was pay 25$ and be part of our powerful club which looks to me the last thing to do to try to grow GNOME in new areas like Africa and Asia. More bugzilla triaging is good, doing more analysis on user input is good, generating upfront user segregation on income is really bad. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Desktop team http://redhat.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
