GNU Business Network Definition comments
sam at liddicott.com
Mon Jun 12 19:07:13 UTC 2006
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
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
As Stef makes clear, some businesses deal in software where there is no
open solutions; maybe even they are adding open elements to proprietary
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.
More information about the Discussion