[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Google ads on debian.org

* MJ Ray (mjr@dsl.pipex.com) wrote:
> On 2004-12-14 14:35:54 +0000 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> >* Martin Schulze (joey@infodrom.org) wrote:
> >>  . When we are supposed to generate income with the web page it is a
> >>    commercial web page.
> >This is, also, wrong.  As mentioned elsewhere, not-for-profit doesn't
> >mean no-income.
> It seems quite correct to me. Not-for-profit is not the same as 
> non-commercial, as you rightly state. However, the poster is 
> commenting on commerciality not not-for-profit status. I can quite 
> understand that some people would not want to donate time towards a 
> commercial enterprise.

See, this is what I disagree with, that Debian would be made a
'commercial enterprise' by having ads on it's website.  Perhaps it's
just a language issue.

> >>  . Several developers agreed to work on Debian and within the Debian
> >>    project because it produces Free Software, adheres to a very 
> >>strict
> >>    freedom policy and the social contract and has no commercial
> >>    interests.  If I would want to work for commercial bodies, I 
> >>could
> >>    go to Red Hat, SuSE or Ubuntu.
> >Again, not-for-profit isn't the same as no-income.  I imagine certain
> >(German) universities accept money from their students, does that make
> >them commercial?
> Why are you mentioning universities in connection with this point? 
> Universities are fairly clearly commercial, but some of them do not 
> donate to commercial enterprises, which is the problem about hosting a 
> few points earlier.

Again, I think that's a language thing, and perhaps it's my fault.  When
the poster talks about being a commercial this or that with negative
connotations I tend to feel he's saying "evil for-profit companies" as
opposted to the actual definition of commercialism which is basically
transactions for goods and services.  My point with this was to point
out that universities are commercial (they sell services) without being
"evil for-profit companies".

> Anyway, google are dangerous. No special rewards for them.

Perhaps this is true, I don't know, and was pushing more towards
acceptance of the idea as opposted to this particular scenario, which
has already been dropped by tbm.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: