> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Christian Schaller < email@example.com >
> > wrote:
> > The difference here is that the resources for GNOME (or anything else Red Hat
> > needs for future versions of RHEL) are
> > provided by Red Hat. So if you want the spins to the logically the same in
> > terms of resources we should start demanding
> > that any spin set up needs to provide an annual monetary contribution to help
> > pay for the Fedora infrastructure and team.
> > So you mean to say the software(already existing in the repos) which is not
> > of interest for red hat should pay to stay for fedora infrastructure and
> > Team to stay in the fedora repos?
> > This looks like clear business motive and no point in calling it a community
> > project at all.
> What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the Fedora community,
> if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I think organizations like the Red Cross
> or Unicef would have a much better chance of getting the money.
> So if the Fedora community wants to not care about why Red Hat invests in Fedora they are of course free to do so,
> but it becomes quite disingenuous to later be surprised if Red Hat loses interest in Fedora.
I think one of the points you miss here is that one of the cost benefits to red hat outside of RHEL is a user on boarding process. Use olpc as an example where red hat invested money outside of its traditional paying customer use case, the university out reach programs are another example of this.