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

[Olav Vitters <olav vitters nl>]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:28:02PM +0000, Magdalen Berns wrote:
> > > The point about that really is that the recent campaign seems to have
> > > demonstrated that in principle, GNOME already has the infrastructure
> > which
> > > could allow them to accept money for any given crowdfunding campaign on
> > > behalf of community driven projects (and any general fundraising too, of
> > > course). Assuming that this infrastructure is based on free software and
> > > that it comes without the same kinds of fees as all the crowdfunding
> > sites
> > > do.
> >
> > It might be possible to create something like this, but at the moment
> > GNOME doesn't have the same setup.
>
> The same set up as what?

Something similar to IndieGoGo.

> > AFAIK there's a difference between accepting money yourself and an
> > organization on your behalf. It might not be as easy as it appears.
>
> Tax wise it is a different form of expense. Whoever the treasurer is would
> have to clarify. With that said it seems that the treasurer for a charity
> of this size would have to be used to managing large sums of money from
> donations as well as paying salaries, freelancers and expenses as they
> already have to fill in tax forms every year.

I don't want to be harsh, but there's a known working solution vs
something that "probably will work".

> Instead of talking about what should not be done, I'd prefer if we
> > encourage something to be done.
>
>
> I will assume you are not talking to me here, since that is exactly what I
> am doing already.

I mean that instead of having a list of:
- don't link to Facebook
- don't link to Google+
- don't use IndieGoGo
- don't link to Twitter

I rather see how people can improve on spreading the idea and usage of
free software. It seems FSF is too much about first restricting
ourselves to a group who pretty much only uses free software. Seems too
much "preaching to the choir".

In this case there wasn't anything available, a decision was taken that
is not ideal, but best at that time.

If you look at e.g. GNOME applications, loads of new applications have
been written over the years. The number of commits and authors have
stayed relatively the same. Looking at that per application the
maintenance is decreasing.

Builder is just one item to attract people to work on free software. I
think too much burden is put on this. The person wanting to make Builder
should also figure out a free software version to raise funds. I rather
go for an imperfect solution, acknowledge that, put that on a list of
things to solve and move on.

Then this list of things to solve might read:
- convince Google+ to use free software license in their javascript
- convince IndieGoGo to use free software license in their javascript
- create an alternative to IndieGoGo just for GNOME
- create an alternative to IndieGoGo for everyone

Above list can be worked upon by multiple people and maybe entire teams.

> I don't see how having a banner which endorses an campaign automatically
> > leads to endorsing something else (the company making the campaign
> > possible). Maybe sometimes, but at the moment we link to Facebook,
> > Twitter and Google+ for IMO entirely logical and practical reasons.
>
>  Social links are indeed, a tough call in a question like this. Off hand.
> twitter does not seem so terrible, but does GNOME actually gain anything
> from being on facebook to make it worth that, though?

I don't think it is a tough call at all. I agree with the idea of free
software. I don't like that turning into a list of things you cannot do.
With free software I still have non-free software running on my machine.

There's multiple ways to support and stand by the way of supporting free
software. 

Regarding gaining anything: How would more people ever know about free
software if the only people we reach out to is free software people?

-- 
Regards,
Olav