No subject
Mon Oct 30 22:48:16 UTC 2006
unknown entity vs not making a donation and hoping it went ahead.
I felt strongly enough about wanting to show my appreciation for the Mythtv
project as a whole, and this was one way of doing it (plus I really wanted
the overlap recording feature).
Once I was satisfied that the developers named were aware of the proposal
and had agreed to participate that was enough for me to throw down my cash,
even knowing that a company would also be a beneficiary.
On the "other commercial company", as long as the developers involved don't
feel that they were tricked then I'm happy. The simple fact that OSP would
stump the balance of the 6000 missing on the 20th April made me certain that
this had commercial benefits for them and that it would go ahead.
The community will benefit from this obviously, after the patches are to be
applied to trunk the scheduler changes etc should be able to be used if
someones want to make itv be able to do single tuner overlap recordings (or
whatever else another developer wants)
There have been a couple of efforts with regard to pledges prior to this
"sponsorship", the fact that the developers involved have agreed to do
things this way shows it can be done if it is approached the way the devs
want. I guess having the pool of money upfront gives them some confidence in
getting paid.
Just my 2c...
Roo.
------=_Part_22714_28698848.1176510746380
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On 14/04/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chad</b> <<a href="mailto:masterclc at gmail.com">masterclc at gmail.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> However, as was pointed out earlier, I have no problems with a company<br>> benefiting from open-source software, it happens all the time and that's<br>> kind of how the model really works anyway. Though I agree that it would
<br>> be nice if the company in question was either pitching in more or at<br>> least being more open about what exactly they're pitching in.<br><br>I completely agree with this, and that first part was my point in my
<br>reply. I don't necessarily agree with the last part though. Just<br>because a company has a separate "branch" for open source development,<br>I don't think it's then necessary to point back at their commercial
<br>wing to show what their other businesses are. In the US, if a company<br>has multiple companies registered under one name (DBA) they don't<br>typically point out this fact.<br><br>I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's helpful, and I don't
<br>think it's 'questionable' if they don't. They are ultimately helping<br>out thousands of MythTV users, and getting done what plenty of other<br>"individuals" haven't been able to in the past. So, being more open
<br>about what they are pitching in doesn't seem relevant (and by the way<br>they were open about how much they initially will invest, 500 Euros),<br>mostly because it's a good feature for a lot of users that other's
<br>have (unsuccessfully) tried to organize for development in the past.<br>And most of all, above and beyond any other point I tried to make, I<br>think that because there are 3 developers who have agreed to this,<br>none of the 'details' should be questionable. It's as simple as
<br>donate or not, and OSP will cover the rest; apparently even if that<br>means the full 6000 Euros.<br><br>-Chad<br>_______________________________________________<br>mythtv-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mythtv-users at mythtv.org">
mythtv-users at mythtv.org</a><br><a href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users">http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br>From my point of view I weighed up the risk of making a donation to an unknown entity vs not making a donation and hoping it went ahead.
<br><br>I felt strongly enough about wanting to show my appreciation for the Mythtv project as a whole, and this was one way of doing it (plus I really wanted the overlap recording feature).<br>Once I was satisfied that the developers named were aware of the proposal and had agreed to participate that was enough for me to throw down my cash, even knowing that a company would also be a beneficiary.
<br><br>On the "other commercial company", as long as the developers involved don't feel that they were tricked then I'm happy. The simple fact that OSP would stump the balance of the 6000 missing on the 20th April made me certain that this had commercial benefits for them and that it would go ahead.
<br><br>The community will benefit from this obviously, after the patches are to be applied to trunk the scheduler changes etc should be able to be used if someones want to make itv be able to do single tuner overlap recordings (or whatever else another developer wants)
<br><br>There have been a couple of efforts with regard to pledges prior to this "sponsorship", the fact that the developers involved have agreed to do things this way shows it can be done if it is approached the way the devs want. I guess having the pool of money upfront gives them some confidence in getting paid.
<br><br>Just my 2c...<br><br>Roo.<br><br>
------=_Part_22714_28698848.1176510746380--
More information about the mythtv-users
mailing list