Hi Jörg,
2013/10/5 Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> > Hello, > > > From: Guy Waterval [mailto:waterval....@gmail.com] > > > I think it is dangerous when "public" funds support a > > developper in a free > > project in which companies are associated. Just today I had a > > discussion > > with a Windows user saying he did not like the free projects > > because he > > considered that in these models, the volunteers are the > > losers and people > > who can commercially exploit the final product without > > reverse anything to > > the project itself, the winners. It is a quite common opinion > > among Windows > > users with whom I have the opportunity to discuss, probably > > because they > > haven't the habit of free projects. > > This is why I find preferable (but this is only my personal > > opinion) that a > > freelance developer should be paid only for his specific > > mission, defined > > by donors, and should not be "integrated and under the control of the > > project" for questions of independence and transparency. This should > > reduced the desagreable comments, I think. > > I understand what you're saying, but a detail I do not understand: > > Why should it be relevant whether companies are integrated or not? > When companies are involved in a project, they expect tangible returns of their investments, it's a normal business rule. They have therefore a significant weight on the development. It does not bother me, it's normal, and I do not see such a big project as AOO able to evolve on a purely community base, without the resources and help of external companies. But maybe some communities could have different priorities and could wish realize them without the risk to be in minority if they try to realize them from inside the AOO project. In this case, they might perhaps prefer to invest for it themselves and keep a better visibility of the progress of their project than if "their developers" are directly merged into the AOO project. Only my opinion, of course. A+ -- gw >
