Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org

[Magdalen Berns <m berns thismagpie com>]

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 1:12 AM, meg ford <meg387 gmail com> wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Christian Hergert <christian hergert me> wrote:

On 01/05/2015 03:44 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> To elaborate on the point about fundraisers a little further: Also
> though I have to wonder whether future fundraisers could maybe be
> handled in the same way as the groupon fundraiser was managed.
> http://www.gnome.org/groupon/ since that did not seem to be too
> controversial at the time. If that sort of thing would mean more work
> but ultimately lower fees, then perhaps GNOME could also take an
> administrative cut off the top for managing the donations on behalf of
> the relevant project developers? It might also be worthwhile for us to
> set up a dedicated wiki page guide explaining what alternative
> fundraising platforms GNOME want projects to use and compile a list of
> links on there and have some recommendations for standard practices. It
> might also be handy for those wishing to fund their projects if we
> compiled and outline the logical steps a project manager and/or project
> developer might take to get set up and seek permission and support with
> launch etc.

If crowdfunding was a service that the GNOME foundation offered it's
members, I would be in favor of that. However, as it stands today, I
believe this would cause undue burden on the board.

Additionally, I'm against a policy on external links based on their
_javascript_, full stop. (However, I'm willing to entertain a policy based
on other guidelines).

Speaking for myself, I use Blogger and link to non-free websites on wiki pages (e.g. in the "prior art" section on the gnome-sound-recorder wiki page).

Rebel.

 

I think people should make their own decisions about ethics as long as they are not causing other people harm, and I also don't think establishing policies regulating things like this is a good use of resources. imo.

I think you have agreed with me on the wiki and the blog but seem to not realise that, for some strange reason. To clarify, I agreed that individuals should be able to make their own choices for how they blog and pointed out that the wiki and would be too difficult to regulate than is practical. Really, the point here is that the core policy chat is referring to what GNOME, the organisation should endorse. The reason I would have to disagree with you that a policy on something like that is not a waste of time and resources is because some of the community feel like that GNOME as a "brand" represents a certain set of principles and that it may send out the wrong message to the general public for GNOME to be seen to be advocating or endorsing the use of non-free software by casually treating non-free links like they're the same as free ones. If there is a general consensus one way or another then setting a policy means that some links are not treated more equally than others. In other words, it leads to a situation where people are treated fairly in situations where the issue comes up in future in terms of how it gets dealt with and this can serve to prevent conflict.

Hope that clarifies,

Magdalen