> > Interesting sentiment. So, if Gentoo were to post on their front page > > that they were full, enthusiastic supporters of terrorism, had in fact > > helped to fund the 9/11 attacks, and were now in the process of > > pulling money together to help fund a nuclear attack on NYC, you'd > > just merrily keep sending them donations because the "quality of the > > software is high"? Strange... > > * wrong, because if you START making such questions, you will end > in a world where Free Software delevopers have to demonstrate > politically rightness before being supported by their users... > > I don't like the idea of a world where > libertarians support 'their' libertarian Free Software Developers > and republicans support 'their' republican Free Software Developers > only. > > Where would that end?
That would end pretty much where I'd want it to. What is a boycott, if not people showing, by witholding their money, that they care about what companies and groups do with that money? I know plenty of people that don't buy Coors beer because they think Joseph Coors is a fascist. Or don't buy Nike shoes because they believe Nike runs sweatshops in other countries that employ children in obscene conditions. It's proper to funnel your money to groups and organizations that behave in ways you approve of and to withold money from those that don't. Why should free software developers be any different? Of course I'd be far more likely to donate to a libertarian-minded development team than a hardcore republicrat group (as I am libertarian)! That sounds absolutely right to me. Think about your money as an extension of your own personal capabilities, labor, and effort. If you are a libertarian and Rush Limbaugh were to ask you to come on down to the street corner and help hold signs promoting his extremely conservative views, I'd imagine you'd decline. However, what you seem to be saying is that if Rush Limbaugh also ran a free software development group that put out good quality software, you'd have no problem donating to that group, even if you knew that the money would, in part, be used to print up the very signs you had just refused to hold up! Had he asked you to run the printing press, you'd have declined, but when asked to pay the salary of someone who would, you're ok with that! By the way, I'll be the first to admit I'm not diligent about knowing where my money goes either. It's not like a do a background check on every company I do business with or behind each product I buy. Who's got the time? I, like everyone else, rely on a combination of blind hope and trust with the thought that the media will uncover the worst of the abuses. What I was really responding to were the posts from folks who claim that they don't care where their money goes. There's a difference between not knowing and not caring. I may not know where most or all of the money I spend ultimately ends up, but I certainly do care. While that seems contradictory, it basically means that while I recognize I don't have the time or resources to fully research where my money goes, I will pay attention when told and am willing to adjust my spending/donating behavior in light of new information. It appears to me that those who claim they don't care would not - they would just keep right on donating regardless of what they learned was being done with the donated money. And that's sad. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
