GNU Business Network Definition comments

Sam Liddicott sam at
Mon Jun 19 08:39:09 UTC 2006

Christian Schröder wrote:
> Rudy Gevaert schrieb:
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:35PM +0200, 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.
>> Would you put effort in achieving something that is temporary?  Or
>> that says in it's definiation 'it's bad'?
> ok maybe i said it wrong. I didn't mean saying it is bad at all. Just
> saying this a temporary level on the way to the even better one. I meant
> something like an apprenticeship. And most business go for short term or
> temporary all the time, thats why why we have most of the problems in
> the first place IMO.
> I think there is a need for a pure version, so it can't get corrupted
> cause of interpretations. But if just go for all, it will be a long way
> to get something from it. As a starting catalysator we could use a
> non-pure version. This has to be limited in time, otherwise most of the
> companys go just for it.
I think the companies that surpass the non-pure version will
sufficiently de-value the non-pure version, and the potential to do this
will attract companies to obtain pure certification.

If required, lets add sufficient financial penalties ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
membership fees for the non-pure version to fund campaigns and
incentives for those who would become pure.

We do need a pure version, but FSF aims are gained more by existing
companies being made pure, so we ought to chose a model that will tend
towards this behaviour, I realse that we are discussing the best way to
do this.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Discussion mailing list