3 ms·

Just because Canonical did something morally dubious doesn't make it okay for Mint to do it too. To take this to the logical conclusion, Banshee should never e

by nodata 15y ago

Just because Canonical did something morally dubious doesn't make it okay for Mint to do it too. To take this to the logical conclusion, Banshee should never earn any affiliate revenue ever (unless people build from source), and the distro should take it all. This is clearly ridiculous. No distro removes ":help uganda" from vim, and I would argue that if only one side were to get the money, it should be Banshee. The truth is the distros need Banshee, Banshee needs the distros. Rather than arguing over who needs who how much, split the money 50/50.

PerryCox 15y ago
> "The truth is the distros need Banshee, Banshee needs the distros. Rather than arguing over who needs who how much, split the money 50/50." This hits the nail on the head. Joel Spolsky's answer about splitting equity comes to mind.[1] [1]:http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/6949/forming-a-new-software-startup-how-do-i-allocate-ownership-fairly/23326#23326 http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/6949/forming-a-new-s...
- tzury 15y ago
  This is no doubt, a great and canonical guide for equity splitting, yet I find it hard to see the link to this case.
  - PerryCox 15y ago
    I think the relevant part would be this quote: "Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake."
- khafra 15y ago
  Shapley Value to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value
joe_the_user 15y ago
Note that the article states that Canonical changed the Banshee code to give a 75/25 split. I'm not sure how that outcome is terribly different on a moral level than the 50/50 split you advocate. Note that Banshee is sending the money to the Gnome Foundation, a non-profit, indeed, but one which surely Red Hat must support by necessity, with Red Hat being a profitable company ten times the size of Canonical (with Mint being even smaller).

by nodata 15y ago

PerryCox 15y ago

> "The truth is the distros need Banshee, Banshee needs the distros. Rather than arguing over who needs who how much, split the money 50/50." This hits the nail on the head. Joel Spolsky's answer about splitting equity comes to mind.[1] [1]:http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/6949/forming-a-new-software-startup-how-do-i-allocate-ownership-fairly/23326#23326 http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/6949/forming-a-new-s...

tzury 15y ago
This is no doubt, a great and canonical guide for equity splitting, yet I find it hard to see the link to this case.
- PerryCox 15y ago
  I think the relevant part would be this quote: "Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake."
khafra 15y ago
Shapley Value to the rescue! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley_value

joe_the_user 15y ago

Note that the article states that Canonical changed the Banshee code to give a 75/25 split. I'm not sure how that outcome is terribly different on a moral level than the 50/50 split you advocate. Note that Banshee is sending the money to the Gnome Foundation, a non-profit, indeed, but one which surely Red Hat must support by necessity, with Red Hat being a profitable company ten times the size of Canonical (with Mint being even smaller).