On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 01:36:20PM -0400, Josh Grosse wrote: > On 2015-07-08 13:04, Jorge Gabriel Lopez Paramount wrote: > > >I would like to say only this: if people to not want big companies > >meddling with OpenBSD as it has been happening with Linux better its > >users support it. > > Jorge, > > Its users should support it, yes. True. And many of us do. However, > the statement might not be completely accurate. To the best of my > knowledge: > > 1. Contributors do not influence technical direction, instead, the > funds are allocated based on Project need. This is per the > description at http://www.openbsdfoundation.org/donations.html and > the description at http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html > > 2. Any code contribution requires the approval of multiple Project > members -- developers with commit authority -- in order to be committed, > and all commits are subject to Project review. > > 3. All code commits are done publicly, via CVS. That's per stated > policy in http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html and is also pursuant to the > "Open" in the Project's name. > > Yes, it is possible for a financial contributor to influence development. > Specifically, hardware support may be influenced by contributing sample > hardware to an interested developer. I have also heard that certain > beverages may have a minor influential effect.* > > --- > > * I would consider this a social contribution rather than a financial one. > Though, some single malt scotches have reached a price where one may > require both Financial Advisers and Investment Counselors in order to > obtain them.** > > ** Yes, Macallan 18, I'm looking at you. >
In general, I would say: If you don't trust the developers to not let companies "meddle with OpenBSD", then you shouldn't trust them, and their OS anyways. Kind regards, Thomas
