GNU Business Network Definition comments

Sam Liddicott sam at
Tue Jun 13 08:29:41 UTC 2006

Christian Schröder wrote:
> You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that
> in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a
> degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you
> need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more
> like a declaration of the intent to become a good one.
> I think we need a pure high standard in the end like the others
> suggested. But to make it easier and to find more recognition there
> should be a lower level, which will only be granted for a fixed time.
> After that period you loose all rights to attain a low level grade. Of
> course if you meet the pure standard you are welcome.
> Something like that the key point for me is the loss of value through time.
This is a good observation and further consideration shows that it is
self-depracating on a natural scale.

If one company obtains a low-level designation, and no other companies
in the same field obtain any designation, then this company is leader in
free software for that field, and quite possibly pushing the boundary.

As that field becomes more free and more companies in the same field
obtain the same or better designations the value of the lower
designation will fall.

Those companies who truly support FSF ideals and aims will stay near the
leading edge with the higher available designations, thus the aim of
pushing boundaries in the more difficult fields as achieved and only
companies who support these ideals receive designations of persistent value.


More information about the Discussion mailing list