Apparently in the past day, they’ve removed all the logos from the Microgrants projects and clarified that the grants are unsolicited
Apparently in the past day, they’ve removed all the logos from the Microgrants projects and clarified that the grants are unsolicited
They weren’t even grants. They just donated money and said “look we’re sponsoring them!”, implying a relationship. As mentioned in that article, musl and ffmpeg (and probably everyone) didn’t even know FUTO was doing this.
My disapproval of FUTO notwithstanding, that is the dictionary definition.
I never looked at those “we sponsor/donated to” sections on organization pages as implying a relationship of reciprocal approval. Are idiots online thinking that?
Anyone should be able to assert “X gave Y money” when that’s true. Taking money from people we disagree with shouldn’t be a problem: less money for them, more for us. Do we want them to spend on shit we definitely disapprove of?
By that dictionary definition, yes, but there’s a connotation of scale and a relationship. For example, your local arts events are often sponsored by local businesses and philanthropists, but if you or I donate $10 I wouldn’t call that a sponsorship.
Do you or they necessarily approve of those businesses? Is that implied?
Then are people getting carried away with their imaginations? When I see a “we sponsor” section with logos/names, I don’t assume a substantial amount: could be token for all I know. Quibbling over that when it’s true feels like arguing over inconsequential merit badges.
Donation recipients should be able to take money from donors who should be able to declare that truth.