On 01/05/10 04:01, Thomas Martitz wrote:
>> Still, other may disagree :)
> Right, I disagree. None of the points you mentioned particularly speaks
> against bounties. I especially find the idea stupid to disallow payments
> to work on our project just because it ignores the lot of work that
> already has been done.
There is no need to be insulting. At no point did I call anything
"stupid". I think your views are "stupid". Is that better? If you
can't have a discussion without being abusive then don't at all.
> Our license permits that without any payment at
> all, so why should paid work not work with that idea? The other points
> don't speak against paying an individual developer no matter how you
> look at it (IMO).
Of course there is nothing in the licence to not pay people, and of
course other people get paid for open source. I dislike bounties in
general, and especially for Rockbox, for the very reasons I gave above.
You haven't actually said why you disagree with the reasons I gave,
other than one of them especially is "stupid" (implying the others are too).
> We shouldn't discourage the idea of bounties IMO. If offering a bounty
> makes people bring our project forward, then let it be. That's what we
> all are aiming for afterall. It's entirely up to anyone who'd like to
> dontate or even pay money. Either we wants to see the entire project
> leaping forward, then he makes a donating. If he wants to see a specific
> area being worked on, then he goes the bounty route. I find both ways
> very reasonable.
As you said above, "I would appreciate if such statements wouldn't be
made on behalf of a project" (even though he wasn't making statements on
behalf of the project). I dislike bounties. I'm clearly not alone.
Now of course I wouldn't dream of trying to block them if people were to
make a private arrangement (as that is nothing to do with me), however I
don't think the project should encourage them either. If individuals
want to offer bounties and other individuals want to take them up on it,
then that is fine between them.
Received on 2010-05-01