On 5/7/05, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is actually a very good point in favor of not charging money at > all. If you charge money, you create obligation. That's the way the > legal system works. If you do not, you can easily delist any known LGPL > offender.
It could be looked at as a minimum donation request, and any funds raised should go to the WPF. > > If that doesn't convince you, then try this for size. If we do charge > 10K/yr, Lingnu will not be listed there. It's simply not worth it for > me. If ANYONE is going to be listed there, then, it will be some huge > company, with very little actual Wine involvement. Being as it is that > Wine would like the commercial vendors listed too, I think that's a > lose-lose. Don't you? I believe giving away the only resource that winehq.org has for generating revenue for the WPF is insane. The way it is now we have a pay-pal account for donations and this is the only way any funds make it into this account. I think we should explore ways to raise money for future Wineconf's and other worth while expenditures. While 10k/yr may be a high target 100/yr is a bare minimum at best. Or do you really think that Lingnu is going to > hold back code from Wine? No I don't, I never have and as as Ive already said before I believe everyone in this discussion is responsible and supporters of OSS. About what will happen if a rouge company shows up? I for see winehq.org setting up a page like PearPC and asking the community for help. But some people here think we should have trust and faith in people and not be pessimistic like myself. http://starport.dnsalias.net/index.php?show=article&id=352 And on the out come of this discussion, read the entirety of this thread and apply "bays theorem" and a result will soon follow. http://psych.rice.edu/online_stat/chapter5/probability.html Cheers, Tom