On 12/13/2017 03:00 PM, Albert Dengg wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 01:41:23PM +0100, Paul Boddie wrote: > ... >> So, maybe letting companies support campaigns is good for transparency, even >> if it might give an impression of self-interest amongst those companies. > well, we already did that in the past [0]. > > the only question for me is: > should we somehow group the copanies and the ngos together or not? > > also: > even the ngos each have their own motications to support a > campaigns, the only question is, what their motivations are (for > companies, the thoughts about finacial gains might be stronger...but > htat is also not given) > Another reason to allow companies to be listed as supporting the campaign is this:
In my company we still hear this incredulous, absurd "But how do you make your money?" question when telling people that we, as a software house, will only deliver software under a free license. I think Bill Gates (and others too) poisoned the minds of a lot of people with his nonsense about how you can't do free software if you "have a company" that is to "pay salaries and taxes". If a company who's delivering software to the public sector is listed as supporting this campaign, they are, apart from presumably having supported the campaign financially, effectively saying that they *don't want* the option of delivering software under a non-free license which is still, I think, an important point to make in the minds of many. best Carsten _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
