-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Sam Liddicott wrote:
Once we have [areas of classification and the range of values within each classification that relevant companies and their activities fall into], we draw a couple of lines to delineate requirements for levels of membership and identify supporting activities to help companies progress.
Hi Sam
I had initially suggested three types of ideas that might need to underpin the GBN classification concepts: (1) Any GBN term, reference or certification must be watertight against misapplication or abuse. (2) Within the context of the above the GBN needs to provide a methodology of entry for firms that currently provide sales, support or services for software that is not free. (3) The GBN needs to ensure that companies who operate completely according to the ideals of the four freedoms and the Gnu Manifesto will be rewarded for their accomplishment.
You also pointed out the need to consider those who have "aided someone else who lives by the four freedoms and supports the GNU manifesto; i.e. merely a 'friend.'" A valid point. There may be companies, groups or individuals who provide vital support services to Free Software projects. They are as much a part of the Free Software ecosystem as anyone else but their contribution might be unrelated to actually developing Free Software 'in-house.'
This suggests that four ideas need to underpin the GBN classification concepts:
(1) Any term, reference or certification must be watertight against misapplication or abuse. Each term, reference or certification must therefore support both the four freedoms and the Gnu Manifesto without exception. (2) Within the context of the above the GBN needs to provide a methodology of entry for firms that currently provide sales, support or services for software that is not free. In other words, there should be a method for ensuring that companies that wish to become free can do so. (3) Within the context of (1) the GBN needs to provide a methodology of entry or form of formal recognition for firms that indirectly contribute to the protection and expansion of the four freedoms and the Gnu Manifesto. (4) The GBN needs to ensure that companies who operate completely according to the ideals of the four freedoms and the Gnu Manifesto will be rewarded for their accomplishment.
(2) and (3) are natural avenues for attempted abuse or misapplication, but at the same time they provide a way to allow the GBN to penetrate deeply into established companies through conversion and positive engagement. If handled correctly: (2) will allow companies to convert to ethical software (3) will ensure long-term supporters will engage directly with the GBN
In the existing GNU Business Network Definition (version 0.9.10, http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/gnubiz-disc/2000-December/000014.html) there might not be enough provision for allowing companies that currently deploy and support un-free software (type (2) above) to convert to Free Software. On the other hand, as has been pointed out more than once on this thread, giving too much provision is automatically opening the GBN to potential abuse.
One idea that has been floating around this thread is to have different types of membership to provide access to different types of group. This could take the form of stepped membership (A) Pure Free Software company and Gnu champion (B) Transition company making the switch from un-free to Free Software (C) Free Software supporter
I believe the general concept of having different types of membership is quite attractive. It does not try to put everyone into one box and that's a good idea in light of the complexity of the ICT market. In Europe alone we're looking at a market that addresses 375 million people and is spread across 25 nations. Diversity is the watchword. That being said, the method of classifying companies and the wording applied to the classifications is of vital importance.
Example: (A) Pure Free Software company and Gnu champion 'Pure Free Software company' appears clear enough. This is indicative of a company that uses, creates, deploys and supports *only* Free Software. But how far does that go? What's on the mobile phones that the employees use for business? A mobile phone is a computer. It can use Free Software. My own mobile phone is a Nokia. It does not use Free Software. 'Gnu champion' is very vague. What does that really mean? A company that follows the Gnu Manifesto? But surely it is possible to follow the Manifesto with more or less enthusiasm. Not every participant in the Gnu network is a champion, for if everyone was a champion it would be impossible to differentiate between supporters of Free Software. Ergo that term is as meaningless as a term found between the covers of a motivational self-help book. It is overly positive without actually being indicative of anything.
Let's rethink the wording a little bit: (A) A company that develops, deploys and supports only Free Software and believes the four freedoms and Gnu Manifesto to be central to the company mission.
That sounds a little bit more reasonable. It's using Maffulli's ethical approach to determine a Free Software Business. After initially feeling skeptical about the utility of applying ethics to business adoption of Free Software I have found myself agreeing with the concept. It appears to be a robust way of ensuring that a business is actually a Free Software business.
Is (A) a reasonable term? Perhaps it merits deconstruction from others. This also leaves the wording of (B) and (C) open to debate and reconstruction. I will leave it here for a while. It's time for coffee and perhaps some ramen.
I would suggest that once the ideals of the GBN are decided the actual wording of the documents underpinning it are likely to be a matter for legal advisors on both sides of the Atlantic (at the very least). Loop-holes, inferred meanings and missing clauses are not something that can be risked. It would be a tad messy if Microsoft ended up applying for GBN membership :) At the same time it's so vitally important that the GBN is accessible. The wording of its constitution and membership documents must be legible to those considering or seeking membership.
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@opendawn.com m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire) w: www.opendawn.com - --- OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc