[yavor at doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]
schiessle at fsfe.org
Tue Jun 27 17:16:28 UTC 2006
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:41:58 +0100
Sam Liddicott <sam at liddicott.com> wrote:
> I think those that use and promote use of non-free software to aid the
> migration to free software would be legitimate members of a USEFUL
but this isn't the same what RMS has done.
> I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see
> why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going
> for other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that
> are HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his
> own field.
I think you have to draw the line based on the "products" of a
business and what is visible to the customers.
For example: A company sells server with 100% Free Software (GNU/Linux +
Samba), develops Samba and sells service for the servers. They will
probably have some Windows server to test their Samba-Server and to
keep track of the development of the windows protocols but their
"products" would be 100% Free Software so they would be a GBN Free
Software Business. On the other hand a company which sells server with
Free Software and non-Free Software wouldn't be a pure Free Software
Business and probably not part of a GBN.
Or think about a company which develops Free Software replacements for
non-Free Software. Maybe they will have some of the non-Free
Software to see what it does, compare the features or maintain
compatibility. But they would only develop, maintain and sell Free
Software so they would be a GBN Free Software Business.
Nobody can save your freedom but YOU -
become a fellow of the FSF Europe! (https://www.fsfe.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Discussion