Does that actually disclose all (or any of) the actual merchant charges that are based on annual transaction volume, transaction size, and who knows what else imposed specifically by American Express and generally by any other credit card issuer? (I know I could try to dig one up or start an actual credit application, but I am not that curious.)
1 Like
Sure does. A foreign transaction fee applies for currency conversion utilizing the card, usually percentage-based. Some cards waive the fee but have other tradeoffs.
1 Like
I meant: Is the actual percentage details and/or currency amount disclosed in the Cardholder Agreement?
1 Like
Yes, here is an example of my Cardholder Agreement for the MyVanilla Mastercard:
In this example, spending funds in a foreign currency has a fee of 2.5% of the entire transaction.
1 Like
I try to do it and support in addition developers meeting on local locations too. Thank you!
2 Likes
Done. PureOS Subscription Premium - ie: USD$9.99 per month. Good 'un Purism.
8 Likes
Welcome to the community and thanks for subscribing! Nice way to do your first post.
5 Likes
As expected, I could not find any mention of the fee that would be charged to the merchant (Purism) much less the amount or percentage. That is half of what @lakei asked about.
Also, in addtion to the currency conversion fee, the actual conversion factor might not be that great.
1 Like
There is usually a foreign transaction fee applied on top of the entire transaction towards the cardholder, not the merchant. If you have a citation for a Cardholder Agreement that you want us to parse, provide it.
I will try one last time to describe the first part of what @lakei was asking about. Please do not make assumptions about what I am describing, which has nothing whatsoever to do with foreign transactions except that the fee I am describing also applies to those transactions.
All credit (and debit) card companies charge the merchant a transaction fee, which varies among card companies and transaction size and/or merchant monthly volume. I have never seen a cardholder agreement that even mentions these charges much less detail them. (I have not seen many cardholder agreements and no merchant agreements.) I only know about them because of small business grumbling and ocassional news articles, both of which also mention that merchants are (or were) forbidden by contract to tack these charges on top of published prices. Merchants are usually allowed, sometimes by law, to offer cash discounts.
3 Likes
I see, in that case, any questions pertaining to payment towards Purism need to be redirected to Purism support:
If there was transparency such as Open Collective uses I would donate. I don’t mind donating money with no oversight to a person because I expect them to pay their bills, eat, etc but when donating to a project or group I prefer to have some public records about what the money gets used for.
7 Likes
I too would appreciate additional transparency with how the funds are used. I like The Document Foundation’s annual reports as an example, and I hope to see more reports from Purism like the recent one they did here: https://puri.sm/posts/2023-finance-report-profitable-more-assets-than-liabilities-over-9m-in-sales-50-margin/
7 Likes
Please, forgive my ignorance 
really, but I don’t understand why Linux Communities around the world aren’t supporting Purism/PureOS!!
- Purism is a Social Enterprise
- they realised a dream: L5
- it’s everything open (hardware and software)
So why Linux, Gnome, Debian, Mozilla, LibreOffice,… communities don’t want to include PureOS/L5 in their developments??
It seems absurd for me! It’s in their interests!!
a) teamwork with Purism to improve their products/services
b) every member in every community could have L5 as daily driver
c) strengthening the Linux world
So why??
For example: why Linux kernel community won’t include L5 in their crimson update?
Why Mozilla community don’t want include L5 in their developments?
Same LibreOffice community?
I suppose they’re using PCs to develop their softwares, right? Why don’t do that on L5 both desktop and smartphone mode?
2 Likes
Because Free Open Source Evils peoples. 
Android it is the best Linux FOSS System with Sony Xperia 1 Vi series.
2 Likes
Different goals/priorities. Not everyone believes in no blobs at the cost of usability/performance.
This question doesn’t make sense. The kernel doesn’t include any complete product in this way, it includes support for components and does include support for L5 components.
Because it would be much slower to develop on a less powerful device leading to slower development and alnost certainly slow the progress toward making the UI adapt to the mobile phone screen size rather than increase the speed of that progress. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.
It is not the kernels best interest to abandon their goals on favor of some unrelated project, and isn’t in Purisms best interest either. Purism contributes code to the kernel which gets vetted and incorporated which improves the kernel for all Linux distributions not just PureOS.
It is not in GNOME’s best interest to abandon their goals on favor of some downstream project, and isn’t in Purisms best interest either. Purism contributes code to GNOME which gets vetted and incorporated which improves GNOME for all Linux distributions not just PureOS.
It is not in Debians best interest to abandon their goals on favor of some downstream project, and isn’t in Purisms best interest either. Purism contributes code to Debian which gets vetted and incorporated which improves debian for all people who want functionality over idealism and allows Purism to focus on the idealistic goal while Debian continues to be available to help people transition to Linux that value functionality over ideals and/or don’t share those ideals.
Mozilla and LibreOffice are working on applications that run on many Operating Systems, limiting themselves to PureOS wouldn’t make sense and would be counter to their goals and Purisms goals.
It would disproportionately benefit Purism over the other projects if those other projects focussed on Purisms goals over their own.
They already can, there’s nothing preventing Purism from giving them away or from individuals choosing to buy them.
It really wouldn’t. What would is more money and more resources added to, not pulling from one area to another.
5 Likes
In regard to those numbered items:
-
Purism is a for-profit company who has also specified a “social purpose.” It is still a for-profit company. It has never filed the required annual “Social Purpose Report”.
-
The delivery has been a fiasco in terms of both “timeline” as well as honoring their promised refund requests. This is well known in the “Linux Communities”. See Louis Rossmann’s two videos on this.
-
To be clear, although their mainboard is open, the phone is based on an SoC and the SoC is proprietary. Also, it should be noted that the firmware for the Cellular Modem and the Wifi card is not open (it is proprietary). [And, in that regard, one should note that the phone has not (yet) been certified RYF]. I should note that in these regards, much of this is true for the Pinephone [with the exception that the schematics for the Pinephone(s) are available for inspection but they are not Free]. In terms of the “Linux Community”, the Pinephone and Pinephone Pro offers the same sort of Linux opportunities as the Librem 5 and for much less money.
I think you have a misunderstanding of how software development works in the FOSS world. These are all “upstream” projects in regard to the Librem 5. It’s not “upstream’s” responsibility to reach downstream to help out Purism. It’s downstream’s responsibility (e.g. Purism and others) to work with “upstream” to try to incorporate changes in. I will say that Purism has done a decent job of working with the kernel upstream and the GTK upstream. That said, any problem you have mentioned is not a problem with upstream, it’s a problem with downstream.
e.g. “Crimson” is a distribution codename, not a kernel. It is made/released by Purism and is based on a Debian release/distribution (I believe it was based on Debian “Bookworm”). That codename has nothing to do with a “kernel team”. It is 100% Purism’s responsibility.
e.g. Why do you claim that “LibreOffice doesn’t want to include L5 in their developments”? It’s the responsibility of Purism and/or L5 supporters to make contributions to make LO more usable on the L5, not the other way around. Not only that, the windowing toolkit on LO needs to be able to support Linux, Windows, and iOS … IMO it will not be an easy thing to make it (VCL) compatible with libhandy (LO has their own toolkit which wraps GTK, Windows, and iOS toolkits). And, again, that isn’t their responsibility … it’s the responsibility of the people wanting the change.
6 Likes
Now there is a way to donate to Evangelos a.k.a. devrtz specifically for work on PureOS Crimson for Librem 5, via Liberapay, here:
So for those who want to pitch in, please donate there!
Maybe we can get @evangelos.tzaras to confirm here that it’s the right donation page. (I got the link from him in another communication channel, outside this forum)
11 Likes
It’s a me!
14 Likes
