Lynn Fredricks wrote:
> Red Hat also makes "advertiser" monies as well -- developers that want their
> stuff included on the Red Hat disk pay a large sum to get it on there.
Do you have a link you could post where this is discussed? I've never
heard this before, and when I searched the Red Hat website and didn't
see any mention of it anywhere, though I did see I forgot to include
certification and partnering programs as a revenue source. It's not
really important to the discussion, I'm just curious.
This doesn't change the question: why should Red Hat be regulated
differently than any other company in the advertising, support, or
certification sectors, just because it is open source?
> Developers pay big to leverage the Red Hat brand (one of the few Linux brands
> worth being associated with). Although WotC may make some money off of the d20
> companies that negotiate special mention of the WotC trademarks, they have also
> provided a d20 logo at essentially no cost.
I think Wizards is depending upon the Skaff Effect for a return on
investment, not direct licensing fees. They're going to sell a heck of
a lot of PHBs because of the d20 system. Like I said, it's a great
business move.
--
Skywise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.geocities.com/wanders_in_circles
There is nothing a flamethrower can't solve.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
