| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The right thing to do for Mandrake!The right thing to do for Mandrake!Posted Jan 16, 2003 3:14 UTC (Thu) by gproux (guest, #8286)Parent article: MandrakeSoft enters bankruptcy As the Mandrake product is totally free software, I imagine that it would be very easy for the current developers to let the company (with all its liabilities) die a peaceful way and build a new company on top of the ashes of the current one. The new company would have exactly the same base (minus the servers and developers computers) but it would be "clean" of liabilities. As well, it would be time for Mandrake developers to take some time away from day to day constraints to rebuild a new idea for the future. - Mandrake Office (20 euros) - Mandrake Home (20 euros) - Mandrake Net (10 euros) - Mandrake All (60 euros) Of course, you could install any of the Mandrake on top of the other without losing anything....
(Log in to post comments)
The right thing to do for Mandrake! Posted Jan 16, 2003 9:20 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (guest, #1581) [Link] " As the Mandrake product is totally free software, I imagine that it would be very easy for the current developers to let the company (with all its liabilities) die a peaceful way and build a new company on top of the ashes of the current one.The new company would have exactly the same base (minus the servers and developers computers) but it would be "clean" of liabilities." Whilst I agree that this would be a tidy solution, I think there may be legislation which limits the ability of companies to pull this sort of scam - which is rather common in such fields as the double-glazing & fitted kitchen businesses. Imagine your feeling if you paid for goods or services which weren't delivered, then discovered exactly the same people offering the same goods or services having been freed from their obligations to deliver to or compensate you.
The WRONG thing to do. period. Posted Jan 16, 2003 13:21 UTC (Thu) by guybar (guest, #798) [Link] Apart from the moral problem, such a scam will mean no investor will _ever_ invest in a SW company which opens parts of its code base. not so good, IMHO.
Depend what you want to achieve... Posted Jan 16, 2003 14:10 UTC (Thu) by gproux (guest, #8286) [Link] ... Actually Mandrake should get reborn as a 1901 Law association (basically a non-profit association in France).I never want again to see stupid investors believe they should get any "return" from a free software project. The Mandrake Club would be much better if you would actually pay for a project that is made not for profit but only to the benefit of the club members. Of course, it would mean the end of stock options and crazy salary for developers but it would allow the association to really invest all the money it has only for its users. Another company should be set up,independant of the non-profit association, that would take over all the support contracts for the big customers of Mandrake. seems like a good idea to me.
Depend what you want to achieve... Posted Jan 16, 2003 15:08 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] I never want again to see stupid investors believe they should get any "return" from a free software project.I don't think any investors can be called stupid because they are expecting revenue from their investments. Those, who do not expect revenue, are not investors, but members of the Salvation Army or are called Mother Theresa, or something else. it would allow the association to really invest all the money it has only for its users If I remember well, LWN.net needs about 3000-4000 subscribers to sustain its 3 member staff. I'm not sure, how much staff are needed to produce a decent distribution, but let's make it 15. It means, that (if they would follow LWN's example) they would need 15000-20000 subscribers paying 2.5-10 USD/month. Do you really think it's feasible?
Feasible? Posted Jan 16, 2003 16:51 UTC (Thu) by gproux (guest, #8286) [Link] Have you heard about a little known project called Debian?
Feasible? Posted Jan 17, 2003 11:54 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Yes. They are a project, not a company. They do not rent offices, pay secretaries, accountants, taxes, etc. Do they have any employees, who are payed by the project?
Feasible? Posted Jan 19, 2003 7:03 UTC (Sun) by gproux (guest, #8286) [Link] It seems I was not the only to think in the same line as what is proposed up there, have a look at
|
|
||||||||||||