- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- foss@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- foss@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
@wiki_me I would like to see this model work. Because free software definitely benefits from funding and it’s far more transparent like this than financing software efforts with hardware funds.
it’s not that transparent , for example if i am considering funding signal , i can look at the 990 form , see the top salaries, the amount spent on salaries, the number of employees and calculate the average salary. I don’t mind it if the shareholders make a 10-20 percent return but i don’t want to to be a 90 percent return (which basically no public company has, from what i have seen in tech companies it is somewhere around 10-30 percent).
@wiki_me My point is that the funding is optional and you can track all of Purism’s efforts via their Gitlab instance.
I agree that you don’t have fine-tuned control on what they should focus on. But I’m also not convinced users need to have this control.
Obviously it’s more transparent when you donate to individual developers manually instead of going through a company. I don’t disagree with that.
But in my terms it’s still an improvement.
