Stefano Maffulli wrote:
Do we have such confidence to sell it to a 45 years old bizman that feeds 5/10 programmers selling proprietary licenses? Even if he barely makes the end of the month, I think we still don't have enough arguments to draw exclusive circles like the GBN and we need to come up with something that is inclusive instead.
thanks for the discussion stef
I've stood back on this discussion but this post echoes my conclusions this morning, the choice is clear. We can go for a "correct club" or an "improvement association".
Both types of oranisation have a long tradition; which will best serve FSF aims?
As Stef makes clear, some businesses deal in software where there is no open solutions; maybe even they are adding open elements to proprietary software?
To unite both types; I suggest "levels" or "types" of membership, those that have achieved the strictest aims of the organisation and those that are working towards it. In some cases those "working towards" may be working against internal momentum, the state of the market, or just idling. A check on the number of members in the same software sector with "purer" membership will differentiate between those who find FSF virtues a matter of commercial expedience and those struggling against a real lack of choice.
The organisation would best serve FSF aims if it helped businesses approach the levels of virtue that they currently recognize and can achieve. Such businesses are noble within their scope of understanding, which the organisation could help change.
I recall being taught that none of my body cells are the ones I was born with but I am still "me." I am glad I was upgraded cell at a time instead of being replaced which I would have resisted. The same will be true of businesses.
Sam