* Micah Anderson: > There are some companies that have had their 'bottom-line' demonstrably > impacted in significant ways by open source and have undertaken various > dubious mechanisms to destabilize and discredit open-source. Microsoft > actually acknowledged to the SEC[0] in its required filing[1] that it > may be forced to lower its prices as a result of the growth in open > source, the popularization of the open-source movement continues to pose > a significant challenge to its business model...
Oddly enough, Microsoft funds quite a bit of free software development, and we're distributing some of the results. And Microsoft will not do this simply because there is very little benefit, and the risk of great losses--and they have to fear that during the backslash, attacks from insiders on them might surface. If they want to destroy our community, they simply have to announce that they'll provide Debian support in some way. 8-/ In any case, integrity of developer machines and the project infrastructure is probably more of a concern than the NM process. Citing security reasons as a justification to keep things as they are in the NM process always sounds a bit racist to me. This doesn't mean we should open the floodgates, of course, but I strongly think that voting rights should come *after* unmediated archive upload rights. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
