Hi Pavel,
That's a valid position you have here ;)

Actually if the current Firebird site is "development", then I think
one more site for the Firebird "Public Relations frontend" would be
acceptable. The problem isn't the number of sites, it's just that
logical structures are needed. So I think this would look acceptable:

InterBase OSS Movement:
1. IBDI (News, Advocacy, ...)
2. IBPhoenix (Consulting, Support ...)
3. Borland/InterBase
4. Firebird
4.1 Firebird public site (Presentation, doc, download...)
4.2 Firebird development site

Both Firebird sites would use the same logo, and the title of 4.2
changed to "Firebird development" to make it clear. Does that sound
reasonable?

>
> And another side note about web sites. It's easy to propose
> changes or ideas, it could be also easy to build a new site (but
> someone have to do it), but someone always have to MAINTAIN it
> over time. If no one will step forward and commit time and sweat to
> that, it will never happen despite the magnificence of original

idea.

> Especially the maintenance is a hardest part of whole work that
> only few are willing to take.
>

Yes, I know. As I said in my first message about FirebirdSql.org, in
my opinion this site will not have an awful lot of content. But of
course it will require some maintenance from time to time.

I hope someone will help with this...

However, for the above structure, one question is the position of
IBPhoenix. Much depends on what they want to be their business. If
it's just Support/Consulting, the above looks fine. However, from
Helen's message I got the impression there's more to IBPhoenix.

Therefore, in my opinion, the core question really is, whether
Firebird shall be independent and hence non-profit, or whether Ann &
Co. rather want Firebird as the development department of IBPhoenix.

If Firebird is independent, I think it will be part of the activities
of Firebird to seek sponsoring for the project. Therefore a Firebird
association would be good and this association would sell CDs as one
form of sponsoring.

If Firebird shall not sell CDs, in order to leave that activity to
IBPhoenix, I think terms should be found on how part of that income
is to flow back to the Firebird project.

But in general, since the software is also made available for free
download, the purchase of a CD is much like sponsoring. People buy
them because they contribute to the OSS project. That's why in my
opinion Firebird would be able to sell more CDs than IBPhoenix can,
both because of its name which corresponds to the product (so buyer
knows money goes to the maker of Firebird) and because it's not for
profit. That's why I think it would be preferrable to have Firebird
sell the CDs.

Conclusion: If IBPhoenix wants to sell the CDs and hence build their
business on everything related to Firebird, they should, in my
opinion, also adopt the name (Firebird Inc.) and take control of the
source code repository. I think there is much sympathie for Ann among
the currently active contributors and such a step would probably be
possible (to be discussed with those who have contributed so far).

I have no preference! (and, since I'm not a contributor my preference
wouldn't even be relevant). I just think the current situation is not
exactly clear and that it's up to IBPhoenix to say which way they
intend to go.

Best regards
Markus