GNU Business Network Definition comments

[Ben Finney]

On 12-Jun-2006, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 18:54 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Their business involves restricting the freedom of their customers
> > with proprietary licenses. What's the question here?
> 
> The question is that it is not banal to tell a bizman to completely
> change his business model, that's it.

I don't think making a definition is telling anyone to do anything.

> Shane was saying:
> 
>         If we have confidence in our model - and if our model is truly
>         better
>         
> and I just pointed out that so far there is not enough evidence that
> free software business models can solve all problems.  Remember that
> the Free Sw Community is a recognized expert of Free Sw, not of
> Business, therefore simple answers like 'Redhat is profitable' is
> not acceptable.

That's right. It's hard work making a business model, and requires
particular expertise that is not clearly related to expertise in free
software. I don't see anyone recommending that we come up with
business models for anyone. I don't think that would be a good use of
our skills.

What we *can* do is define criteria that a business needs to meet to
be called a "free software business". That's not telling anyone what
to do -- but it is telling the world what standards we expect.

-- 
 \       "Pity the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."  -- Donald |
  `\                                              Robert Perry Marquis |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20060613/ad303a7c/attachment.sig>