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

Re: revenue sharing agreement with DuckDuckGo

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 02:21:22PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So it is important that any agreement we enter into does not commit us
> to retaining any particular search engine, nor commit us to retaining
> it as the default.  We should be free at any time to change the
> configuration we ship.

Agreed. Yet another argument for the 25% option (which, again, was the
only one I meant to discuss). But you make a good point that, even if
we'll end up having DDG as the default on all our browsers, we should
remain on the 25% option, to avoid getting too "tied up" with
agreements. I completely agree.

> To avoid bias, I would suggest that we avoid mentioning the exact
> amounts of money we gain in contexts where it might influence, even
> subconsciously, our technical choices.  

This is at stake with the good principle that our finances should be
public, though. (And I think the finance transparency principle should
win, on this.)

Stefano Zacchiroli     zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ......   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ......   . . o
Debian Project Leader    .......   @zack on identi.ca   .......    o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: