On 30 August 2011 23:00, Raphael Bircher <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 30.08.11 22:30, schrieb Rob Weir: >> >> (renaming the thread since it has drifted) >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Raphael Bircher<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Rob >>> >>> Am 30.08.11 20:52, schrieb Rob Weir: >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Raphael Bircher<[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>
.... > I see no fundrising for > > * Marchendising, Marketing Material usw. That's correct. The ASF only spends money on supporting open and collaborative development. Development does not directly create revenue to pay for itself and thus our focus is on the reduction of development costs. Development is a liability, not an asset. Everything else goes elsewhere to allow revenue to be generated in the widest possible market. The ASF is a 501c(3) which means we can't do anything that benefits any individual or organisation more than another, we must operate in the public interest. Is this bad? No, it works for >100 Apache projects. We don't see massive splits in communities like those you are predicting. We see constructive development collaboration between organisations who often compete in the marketplace. Is it the way OOo used to work? No, but OOo has chosen to come to the ASF now. The focus of OOo now is on the reduction of development costs by creating a truly open and collaborative development project. Is it the only way? No, but fortunately our permissive licence means other can do it their way whilst still benefiting from the reduced cost of development. Note there is nothing in the ASF that prevents an individual (on company time or not, we don't care) doing marketing, merchandising etc. There are plenty of examples of this happening in ASF projects, it doesn't take ASF cash to do these things. Ross
