On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 05:44:51PM -0400, Solomon Peachy via rockbox-dev wrote: > [..] this got me thinking; the SFC also accepts "member projects" to > operate under their umbrella, providing services including handling > donations (which become tax-deductible!), holding assets, legal > support, and copyright enforcement. [4] > > [I'd welcome the SFC relieving Rockbox devs of these administrative > burdens.] > > Rockbox appears to be a good fit for operating under the SFC's aegis, > as we're explicitly GPL'd, and our accessibility framework in > particular indisputably places a lot of our efforts into the public > interest. > > I should point out that copyright assignment is *not* required, so in > my view if enough of the [semi-]active developers here think this is > worth pursuing, I'll reach out to the SFC and start the process. > Personally, I think this is will be an overwhelmingly net positive, > but it's not someting I think I should unilaterally do. > > Comments?
Great idea. I wholeheartedly agree! > [4] https://sfconservancy.org/projects/services/ -- A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: When is top-posting a bad thing? () ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary /\ file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
