Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship

[MJ Ray]

On 2003-10-16 08:46:12 +0100 Marc Eberhard <address@hidden> 
wrote:

> I'm personnally more and more convinced, that we should rather turn a
> sponsor down than being abused for their own PR. This will loose us 
> some
> donations, but I'm more than willing to accept this.

Is having an advert on a sponsored item "being abused"?  It seems more 
abusive if someone paying for an item can expect advertising on 
unrelated material.  I think linking the benefit to the sponsored item 
is a good idea.  If we want to stop advertising the sponsor, we stop 
using the item.

> It also avoids all the trouble of the right wording and size of boxes 
> on
> printed material right from the beginning. It's a trade-off. Do we 
> want
> donations under any circumstances or do we want donors to accept our 
> strict
> rules?

This isn't an either/or where we must allow everyone to trample us, or 
impose hard rules that I think will drive nearly all sponsors away.  I 
would like us to balance AFFS needs with the expected desires of 
sponsors.  If we want a hard position, then allowing all or nearly 
nothing are the easiest, but it may not be very effective.

--
MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ address@hidden
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/