-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
smc> A company will want to know about Free Software development smc> models (being those models used by Free Software development smc> projects) so that they can access the practical value of smc> adoption (be it partially or otherwise).
Here I think you are again thinking too much along the lines of development. Not only is there no "Free Software development model" per se, as different development models work for proprietary and Free Software alike. I also think we are well-advised to not be overly distracted by the development of software.
On consideration I believe you are right. I have been focusing too much on development.
I agree with your comment that "it is the business model that later drives development, not the other way round." We should not limit the discussion to development methodology. It is therefore correct that business models are a better area of consideration and discussion than development models.
smc> In other words, freedom is the issue but we have to 'sell' smc> freedom to companies. They need to gets facts, figures and smc> practical advice about how Free Software can help their smc> development and deployment models today. Inevitably this smc> translates into questions about systems rather than ideas. If smc> we can provide the systems and inject the ideas we have won on smc> both fronts; practical adoption and a greater awareness by the smc> adopter of why freedom is important.
I generally agree with this assessment. And yes, ideally the GNU Business Network will help to build Free Software business models, and translate proprietary models into Free Software based models. But I think it can only do this sustainably if we make sure that it generates an advantage for companies that are more oriented towards freedom already. Othwerwise the network may seem more attractive at first, and spread quicker, but will ultimately end up repeating the same mistake that was made with other attempts to promote Free Software in the business world -- which currently make life harder for genuine Free Software companies.
This is a valid point.
The GNU Business Network needs to encourage Free Software excellence. While pro-actively encouraging interaction and participation it should hold its members as examples of Free Software at its best.
There is certainly a fine line between inclusion and dilution. Finding a balance between attracting participation and maintaining principles is not something to be undertaken hastily. I believe the decision to take the network slowly is wise. We have seen Free (and Open Source) initiatives appears in the past and fail due to lack of coherency and cohesion.
A point was made earlier in this thread that the GBN should encourage members to strive for Free Software best practice. Perhaps this is the area we should turn our collective intelligence to, and thereby make additional headway in considering how engagement can foster understanding and participation.
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