Re: [Fsfe-uk] RFC: Sponsorship

[ian]

On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 16:15, Richard Smedley wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 14:47, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > ok, lots of comments, so here's an updated suggestion:
> > 
> > * Remove distinction between sponsor and donor.[0]
> >   - As Andrew Savory said: "a sponsor is entitled to expect
> >     more for their money, and is probably not what AFFS needs"
> >     I'll use the term "donor", but either is ok.[1]
> 
> Disagree. What we are about is promoting Free
> Software. This costs money.

I agree, we need to live in the real commercial world even if we
disagree with its excesses.

> Where there is no conflict of interest we
> should be happy to take money that helps us to
> achieve our aim.
> 
> The money is never an end in itself - but until Free
> Software is the norm it will always be needed.
> 
> > * Acknowledge non-monetary donors seperately at the top of
> >   the page, or when-simple, convert to monetary value.
> > 
> > * List donors in order of monetary value, to give bigger donors
> >   a more promenent listing.  Headings *could* divide the donors
> >   into double-digit donation, triple-digit, etc.
> > 
> > * Donations are acknowledged for 1 year.
> 
> I think for *donors* (not sponsors) this
> is broadly acceptable.
> 
> > * Donations will be accepted from anyone, with the commitee
> >   discretion for special circumstances.  I think M$ is the
> >   only company people would have real issues with, and this
> >   will likely never happen.
> 
> MS are not the worst company in the world
> - not even in the software world, though
> they are the most successful. I see no
> advantage to them in donating to us -
> if they did it at the same time as GPLing
> their code I would be delighted ;-P
> 
> > * accept anonymous donations? of course.
> > 
> > * leaflets mention the donors page, not a company name.  Large
> >   printed materials *could* include a list of current donors.
> >   (or maybe triple-digit donors, current as of <date> etc.)
> 
> If somebody wants to donate to a specific project
> (leaflet, program, event, mailout) there is
> /nothing/ wrong with mentioning their name and
> URL. This is standard practice amongst most
> charities - the mention is what swings most of
> the board in favour of donating, and in turn
> good work gets done.

Yes, don't make it so severe you exclude just about everyone. There will
always have to be balance and judgement calls.

> > [0] When an entity gives AFFS 1000, I don't see a reason to
> > distinguish between donation and sponsorship.  And if an
> > entity gives AFFS 1000, I don't see why another entity
> > should be able to cover 100 worth of printing costs and
> > get their name on our leaflets.
> 
> Because they *sponsored* the leaflets. If we run
> out and reprint at our own expense then the name
> would be removed from a subsequent reprint - again
> because it's sponsorship, and it was the cost of
> printing 10,000 leaflets that was sponsored.
> 
>  - Richard "all donations gladly accepted" Smedley

Seen under a red light in a dark alley one night ;-)

In principle I agree with Richard. Let's not get too hung up on money
principles. We need some money from some sources. As long as its not
bringing us into disrepute let's have some flexibility. 

-- 
ian <address@hidden>