Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

[Alex Perez]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, Gregory John Casamento wrote:

> MJ,
> 
> --- MJ Ray <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On 2004-09-30 14:11:48 +0100 Quentin
> Mathé ¦lt;address@hidden>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm all for it too. A foundation dedicated to GNUstep is probably the 
> > > best 
> > > choice from the legitimacy and visibility points of view.
> > 
> > Can you explain why?
>  
> I can...  Because it would be managed by people who have little to do with the
> actual GNUstep project.  

>From the presentation of the FSF Donations page, it is very clear that 
they do not want to accept money for anyone other than the FSF itself (and 
FSF-sanctioned projects like the open source directory and legal defense 
fund) They don't care about us, and why should they?

> > > It seems less likely to be less trusted than FSF and I'm
> > still waiting for Adam Fedor to say if he's asked FSF whether we can do most
> > of the tax-break stuff through them, without the overheads of our own
> > corporation.
> 
> We could talk to RMS about this and see what he says.   But this would take 
> the
> control out of the hands of those who have the most to do with the project, no
> disrespect intended to RMS or the FSF.    I'm really not sure what thier
> response will be.  
Plenty of other GNU projects do their own fundraising, and they probably 
do it that way for a reason...

> 
> > If visibility is the concern, does this need to be "GNUstep Foundation"
> > rather than "GNUstep Marketing Foundation" or "GNUstep Promotion
> > Association"?
> 
> Similar to the GNOME Foundation and the Apache Foundation, yes it does.
> 
> > > We trust you Gregory :-)
> > 
> > I don't think I know Gregory?
> 
> I'm the Gorm guy. :)  
> 
> > This discussion seems to be cc'd to a gnustep-dev list: is that in the gnu.*
> > newsgroups too?
Since the formation of a GNUstep Foundation is directly tied to the 
developers (this is the only way it can be a legitimate foundation) I 
suggested that Greg CC the list to -dev for this specific discussion.

> 
> The feeling was that not enough people were on the address@hidden
> list yet. 

Hopefully this will change in time. C'mon, folks!