<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Graphic style default anchor should be to character" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133291#c14">Comment # 14</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Graphic style default anchor should be to character" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=133291">bug 133291</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:telesto@surfxs.nl" title="Telesto <telesto@surfxs.nl>"> Telesto</a> <pre>(In reply to Werner from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=133291#c13">comment #13</a>) > Is there somebody feeling able to solve this bug, giving the user the > possibility to change the default behavior for anchor inserting images (and > other objects)? > I could make a donation for that. They most effective donation would be they donation of the needed code. But I assume this about a financial contribution :P They issue with financial contribution being that developers are expensive people (and maybe even pricier as employee instead of contractor), so mostly a large sum is needed. Which obviously far to much for what a normal user would be willingly to pay. While aggregating a large sum (crowd funding) failing as they targeted amount not being met; mostly not even close (they few attempt there where floundered) At that point we are back at square one :-(. I personally tend more to they license model. Where they development is funded out of license fee's instead of donations and trying to sell bugfixes/features to (mostly) company's. A license model would generate more stable, continuous flow of revenue. At maybe some customer pressure (if you pay license fee you XYZ functioning). And you have argument for that (I paid X). It's broken, disfunctional, fix it :-). However currently there is nobody 'responsible'. Developers are happy to solve you're problem, please pay 10.000-100.000$ and we will solve that specific issue for you (and they rest of they would will get it for free). So in fact they eco-system partner/developer is moving their investment risk (without return, because 'shipped for free) to some company/NGO with deeps pockets. But those people not being really inclined to pay. End result desired features can take for ever.. :-(. Note: stuff is as always more nuanced. And only giving my personal view here. Point being: suggestions how to make solve this issue are welcome ;-). There s a fine line/balance between freely available open source office and they commercial interest are here (are large share (3/4) of the code is donated/contributed by (commercial) eco-system partners). And there is they problem of cannibalization. LibreOffice free is again so good, so people/company's/NGO can avoid paying (financially or code) LibreOffice isn't not as good as it could be simply because of money or instead of money bunch of (mostly) C++ developers</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>