GNU Business Network Definition comments

[Sam Liddicott]

Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>
> Do we have such confidence to sell it to a 45 years old bizman that
> feeds 5/10 programmers selling proprietary licenses?  Even if he barely
> makes the end of the month, I think we still don't have enough arguments
> to draw exclusive circles like the GBN and we need to come up with
> something that is inclusive instead.
>
> thanks for the discussion
> stef
>   
I've stood back on this discussion but this post echoes my conclusions 
this morning, the choice is clear.
We can go for a "correct club" or an "improvement association".

Both types of oranisation have a long tradition; which will best serve 
FSF aims?

As Stef makes clear, some businesses deal in software where there is no 
open solutions; maybe even they are adding open elements to proprietary 
software?

To unite both types; I suggest "levels" or "types" of membership, those 
that have achieved the strictest aims of the organisation and those that 
are working towards it. In some cases those "working towards" may be 
working against internal momentum, the state of the market, or just 
idling. A check on the number of members in the same software sector 
with "purer" membership will differentiate
between those who find FSF virtues a matter of commercial expedience and 
those struggling against a real lack of choice.

The organisation would best serve FSF aims if it helped businesses 
approach the levels of virtue that they currently recognize and can 
achieve. Such businesses are noble within their scope of understanding, 
which the organisation could help change.

I recall being taught that none of my body cells are the ones I was born 
with but I am still "me."  I am glad I was upgraded cell at a time 
instead of being replaced which I would have resisted. The same will be 
true of businesses.

Sam