On May 24, 2012, at 1:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Let me first tell you that a _separate_ and unannounced mail copy of > something _also_ sent to a mailing list is considered quite rude since > it more often than not forces the recipient to answer the same mail > twice.
This in unfortunately more or less enforced by the list server being configured to not set replies to go back to the list; it is configured to send replies back to the poster to whom one is responding. I've asked about this in the past, since this this is the only mailing list I have seen configured this way in nearly 20 years of using the Internet, but only succeeded in arousing the ire of one or two people and being told "this is the way it is, tough cookies." The end result will be a lot of e-mails that the list will never see and will never get archived, and a lot of unnecessary duplicate e-mails. > I'll not repeat the points I made in private communication, but for the > sake of other readers, I'll answer your probably worst misconception > here as well because it is actually wide-spread. > > Jeff Barnes <jbarnes...@yahoo.com> writes: > >>> It tends to feel like the classical case of "Somebody Else's Problem", >>> and I am somewhat at a loss of how to deal with that without getting >>> cynical to a degree that those who do support me don't deserve. >> >> Man, I feel ya. >> >> I started playing around with LilyPond recently. I like it. As someone >> who uses a lot of open source software, though, only a few projects >> have won a donation of my hard-earned bucks. I don't want to >> discourage you, but I think depending on individual users to support >> you is not going to work out the way you want. If this upsets you, >> read the GPL again. > > Please read > <URL:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney>. > > And after that, read the GPL "again". Another part of this misconception is that "my bucks are harder to earn then your bucks, so I ain't givin' them to ya." (Says the hypocrite who hasn't gotten around to donating himself...) If you use open source software, you should treat it as free-as-in-speech and not free-as-in-beer. I don't usually donate just for a trial of some software, but if I use it a lot it is incumbent on me to donate unless that is clearly not necessary (e.g., the developer says "I don't need your money, use it with my blessing." The software doesn't have to "win" your financial support- your regular use of free software means it is of value to you and you should contribute. As someone else pointed out, if every one of Lilypond's 100,000 users donated just €1 a year that would probably cover David's full time employment on Lilypond development and probably some other costs. Instead, like public TV in the US, only a fraction of customers contribute (says the hypocrite who hasn't gotten around to donating himself...). It's always interesting that people who will pay $2000 for a computer balk at paying $5 for open source software. Lilypond lacks a centralized system for making contributions, which may be part of the discomfort as centralized systems give the illusion of accountability and reliability even though even casual thought will reveal what nonsense that is. Given the international nature of the project, I suspect setting up a centralized funding system would be a very complex undertaking and would involve a lot of lawyer time, massive issues with taxation, etc. The current model is just to send money directly to the developer- mainly David, since he's the one willing to make himself available to the project full-time. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
