On 07.01.2014 14:35, Hugo Roy wrote:
Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not
licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity operating with the common good in mind.
Well, no because they are not software companies to begin with.
Slideshare certainly is. However I am arguing that labeling a company a "Free Software company" is of no use, and does not even help promote freedom through Free Software.
What if a company that solely produces a Free Software product and a hardware manufacturer that uses proprietary firmware merge? The first will loose the label of being a "Free Software company". Now does that change the value of the contributions this company made to Free Software? The same goes for companies that have mixed proprietary and Free Software strategies. Are IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel less valuable because IBM also sells Lotus Notes?
We need to promote the benefits of the freedoms provided by our licenses, not condemn people for not agreeing with us. I see the labeling as a "Free Software company" only used for the latter, and never for the first. That is why I suggest we drop it, and promote our idea of freedom, but respect the decisions that people make for themselves.
...Open Core hurts Free Software... to go back to the original topic.
Cheers,
Mirko.