[IAEP] Revision 50 of the Sugar Labs Fundraising Committe notes

[Sam Parkinson]

Well, Google is really one of the biggest non-free software vendors 
today, so saying yes to google and no to microsoft is very silly.

Also, organisations are big.  Google makes Google Classroom and Google 
Apps for Education ("GAFE"), yet still the OSPO gives SL funds.

Thanks,
Sam

On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Dave Crossland <dave at lab6.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Laura
> 
> I'd like to follow up on this thread :)
> 
> On 15 July 2016 at 23:39, Laura Vargas <laura at somosazucar.org> wrote:
>> - Microsoft (laura -1: No private software funds shall get into our 
>> accounts!) (dave +1: money is money, and almost all the funding 
>> sources are private companies; the Nadella Microsoft is very 
>> different to the Gates/Ballmer era and is about as ethical as 
>> Google, Facebook, Intel, or IBM :) (Laura: don't apply, the 
>> requirement from grants providers to resonate SL values is not 
>> negotiable as it stands for the whole learning model we are 
>> proposing.) (Sean -1: No point adding Microsoft or Bill & Melinda 
>> Gates Foundation to this list.) (Dave: You assert your own values as 
>> "SL values", but the observable behaviour of SL and OLPC is not 
>> consistent with them. What do you see as the difference between 
>> Google and Microsoft? Why does SL take Google's money?)
> 
> How does Google resonate with SL values more than Microsoft?
> 
> Cheers
> Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20160719/59d478d2/attachment.html>