|| svaksha || wrote:
> Using money as the benchmark for getting a software feature
> implemented is a flawed outlook but  hypothetically if that were true,
> we would not have a product like Windows existing in the market in the
> first place.

This makes no sense to me.

>  Secondly a lay user can always hire local coders to make
> any changes if required, 

No he can't. Alone, he wouldn't have enough money. That's why  I proposed a 
structure that allows users to *join* their money.

> what is the point of commercializing it to
> the organizational level ?
> 
> The free (as in beer) software concept has been a boon for many
> undeveloped nations with respect to learning and sharing knowledge
> with the masses. 

???
*Nobody* is threatening this concept. Software should be free. Donations 
would be completely *voluntary*. Just like they are now.

> If this did not remain in the present form and were
> to assume a commercial identity

??? Commercial identity? Did you actually read what I wrote?

> it would deny ordinary people a basic
> right to have information many poor governments will be at the mercy
> of rich corporate entities. The GPL prevents such crass
> commercialisation and it must remain that way !

Exactly. Then your fears are *doubly* illogical.

Maurizio
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<