| 1 |
While I'm not particular on the actual implementation, nor do I have a firm |
| 2 |
opinion one way or another on this matter, I personally see a large |
| 3 |
opportunity for Gentoo to create more "products" that generate revenue. This |
| 4 |
looked like a great opportunity for that, so that's why I suggested it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
From my perspective, we're going to take what amounts to a portage snapshot |
| 7 |
and spend time (and not a trivial amount either) maintaining it separate from |
| 8 |
mainstream portage. I don't think $20 a year is an unreasonable amount to |
| 9 |
ask for this - especially since the normal portage tree is still available. |
| 10 |
The money is meant to benefit the future of the project; it's not going into |
| 11 |
my pockets. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I didn't expect the idea to be a popular one, but I bet if you took an |
| 14 |
informal poll of end-users who explicitly would desire using this tree over |
| 15 |
the normal portage tree, a majority of them would see the value and incline |
| 16 |
to agree. And while it'd be nice to just have a "Donate to Paypal" link |
| 17 |
instead, I'm inclined to think most people would prefer paying for a service |
| 18 |
rather than donating to a group. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I don't intend this to flame or be flamebait; I'm just wanting to throw out |
| 21 |
ideas and perhaps get some people thinking outside the box. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Caleb |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
On Monday 02 February 2004 01:25 pm, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 26 |
> I agree. I do not think that would be in the spirit of free software. |
| 27 |
> Additionally it would alienate a lot of developers and users. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives