Re: FW: [LilyPond] Your organization application has been rejected.

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:49 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 2012/3/20 Łukasz Czerwiński <address@hidden>:
>>>>
>>>> Can you share your thoughts?
>>>
>>> Lilypond would never be useful for Google products. There is absolutely no
>>> point for Google to pay for code that would never be useful for them.
>>
>> The point of GSOC is not to improve google products. See also:
>> http://www.google-melange.com/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2011/faqs#goals
>
> I suppose that Łukasz (along with some other people that i've talked
> with) finds it hard to believe that Google does something that doesn't
> have to bring measurable profit :)

It certainly does bring measurable profit.  It makes Google a "cool
company", and that means you get highly qualified and motivated people.
Google is a company built around advertising, image and perception.  As
is its stock value.

I think it is also encouraged of employees to work on one project of
one's liking per week rather than on company business.  That seems like
it would carry a higher burden than the whole GSoC enterprise.

"Open Source" proponents try to liken successful distributors of free
software to the "bottled water" business.  Google, in contrast, excels
at bottling hot air and making that fly.

Which is actually still more substantial than controlling the dispersion
of bottled promises (bank notes), nowadays done mostly without the
bottles (namely as electronic bank transfers, making it possible for,
say, Icelandic banks to deal with many more promises than they could
actually bottle).

-- 
David Kastrup