[Ardour-Dev] funding priorities

[Quentin Harley]

Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
> This is about keeping Paul employed to work on Ardour instead of 
> letting some other company get access to all that energy.
>
> The attitude some people here have towards the suggested ideas for 
> licensing give me the impression that they don't really care if Paul 
> is forced to stop working on Ardour.

Of course we care.  Am I wrong in wrong if I say that all the people 
that are now against these changes to ardour as the product are the 
people already contributing a lot of time, and a monthly subscription to 
Ardour?


> The ideas are not going to make Ardour a monopoly or force a closed 
> source system on people who don't know any better. They are simply 
> ways of getting people who normally wouldn't contribute to actually do 
> so.
>

That is all good, but we have to at least keep the 150 odd subscribers 
we have now.

The reason we are in the situation we are in now is because software 
became so expensive to start off with.  Students and upstarts cannot 
afford these, and then just rips it off.  We now have a whole generation 
of "Try before buy" users that do not even think about the fact that 
they are part of the reason software is becoming even more expensive to 
cover costs...

These guys sees Ardour, and does not think twice to use it for free 
without donating.  Why should they if they are stealing other software 
as well.

The best way to get more donors is to aggressively start spreading 
ardour where it is needed most.  When Ardour can get a larger fan base, 
there should me more donations, especially if voting for features by 
donations kicks into play.

Regards,
Q