<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 19/06/15 03:13, Jörg Knobloch wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:5582E01F.60300@jorgk.com" type="cite">There is
nothing wrong with providing support for Mozilla products on a
commercial basis.
<br>
<br>
The SUMO article is rather misleading
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/avoid-and-report-mozilla-tech-support-scams">https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/avoid-and-report-mozilla-tech-support-scams</a>
<br>
<br>
It states:
<br>
Common technical support scams:
<br>
Companies that charge you for installing Firefox or Thunderbird.
<br>
Companies that charge you for fixing or updating Firefox or
Thunderbird.
<br>
<br>
This statement is simply wrong and has gone to far.
<br>
<br>
Please explain what is wrong with entering a contract with someone
who needs Firefox or Thunderbird support and charging for the
services supplied? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
As someone who runs a business providing <i>precisely this</i> for
Thunderbird (amongst other FOSS products), I agree with Jörg.
Specifically (referring to the article in its present state) the
first paragraph (<i>"Companies that ask for payment or personal
information for installing, updating or providing support for
Firefox or Thunderbird are not affiliated with Mozilla and should
be avoided."</i>), and bullet points two and three. When I have a
moment I'll suggest some rewording to be helpful.<br>
<br>
Cheers, <br>
Dave<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Dave Koelmeyer
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.davekoelmeyer.co.nz">http://blog.davekoelmeyer.co.nz</a></pre>
</body>
</html>