Re: Links to javascript-based websites from orgmode.org: Paypal and Github

[Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3808 bytes --]

Hello All,

I’ve been viewing this thread with trepidation for a while, and I’ve reached
a point where I feel compelled to add another 2c of mine.

> It’s about the GNU Project’s moral stand (nonfree software is an
> injustice, and encouraging people to use it is wrong), and what
> follows from that.
>
> The GNU Project takes a less extreme position: if a business asks
> customers to use nonfree software to communicate with the business, we
> advise people to refuse to use that software.
>
> Sometimes it’s possible to do business with that company
> and avoid the nonfree software.  Sometimes it’s not.
>
> As this example shows, there are various different kinds of
> scenarios involving businesses and nonfree software.  The GNU Project
> makes these distinctions and treats them differently.

This is all very well and good, however in this case we don’t seem to be dealing
with “a company” per se so much as the entire financial sector.

Hence, I find the question underlying this thread to be whether we should be so
uncompromising in avoiding directing users to non-free JS, that maintainers
should be effectively prohibited from soliciting donations.

Forgive me for this ideological transgression, but I personally find this
absurd. I hold that the GNU project and FSF should do everything reasonably
possible to promote FSF and help support the lovely people who devote time an
effort into enriching FOSS. I don’t think it’s news to anyone that FOSS devs are
overwhelmingly underappreciated and under-compensated for the work they do. We
do not do this for the money, but it dignifies the work we do and allows some of
us to devote more time to working on FOSS.

Adding significant road blocks between philanthropic individuals looking to
support a project they like and the project maintainers helps no one in the end.

In this entire 40+ message thread, only two options have been listed (besides
the FSF’s special arrangement) which do not direct people to non-free JS:
Cryptocurrancy
      Which is volatile in value, regional regulation, and
      individual distaste.
Cheques
      Which are a dying (and in some places dead) form of bank transfer
      instruction. It’s already been established that Ihor would face a US$200 fee
      when collecting a cheque, and over where I am the central bank announced in
      2019 that at a point in the near future the “it will be appropriate to wind up
      the cheque system”. Last year a neighbouring country stopped offering or
      receiving cheques altogether.

I think it’s fair to say these are not viable options, leaving accepting
donations via Liberapay, Stripe, etc. as the only practical options. Until then,
let’s not allow perfect to be the enemy of good.

As it happens though, Stripe seem to have open sourced all of their frontend
code — all of these repos <https://github.com/stripe> seem to be MIT-licensed.
Perhaps we just need to get this to be compatible with liberajs?

Alternatively might the FSF be able to accept donations on the behalf of various
projects and distribute the money accordingly? Should the FSF indeed be the only
organisation capable of taking donations in a proper manner, why isn’t this
offered as a service for the wider community instead of withholding this freedom
and just complaining that others don’t provide it?

So, to sum up the situation I’d suggest we pick from the following options:
⁃ Accept the situation isn’t great
⁃ Build/fund a new tool
⁃ Convince an existing tool to be more libera-friendly
⁃ Use the FSF as an intermediary

Asking maintainers not to accept donations (or making it prohibitively
difficult) is not a solution.

All the best,
Timothy