<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>On May 28, 2008, at 4:37 AM, "Seth Woodworth" <<a href="mailto:seth@isforinsects.com">seth@isforinsects.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br><snip> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Basically, develop and<br> release Sugar in partnership with the community, and sell deployment<br> and customization services to pay for the core developers.  The core<br> developers do deployment work regularly, meaning they have direct<br> contact with clients (i.e. real educators), and the project can afford<br> to stay independent of outside interests.  The community has to trust<br> the core team's vision, but now that Sugar Labs is independent of OLPC<br> and Walter is in charge (right?) I doubt that will be an issue.<br> <br> Best,<br> <font color="#888888">Wade<br> </font></blockquote></div><br><br>OLPC would be the go-to candidate to hire services from Sugarlabs.<br> </div></blockquote><br><div>For Sugar on the XO, sure.  </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>But what about the rest of the potental Sugar clients?  The whole idea was to separate Sugar from OLPC, and to make deals with other laptop manufacturers.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Wade</div></body></html>