Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Sam Liddicott wrote:
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
There are people presenting "Microsoft Office on Wine" as "Free Software best practice" and they would certainly ask to be listed on any such initative -- most companies understand this to be a very good tool of customer acquisition and thus have a vested interest in being mentioned.
I think that one step is to recognize the different types of
activities.
Here you have recognized that making closed source software
available to
people moving to open source systems as one type of activity. It is a supporting activity. Another step will be to classify different activities against these
types.
Here you recognize the MS Office on Wine presentation as such an
activity.
Different types of activities have different degrees of goodness as
well
as different degrees of ambiguity of goodness.
Here - as they say - is the rub. It's ever so important to make sure that the defining line between good activities and bad activities is drawn a the right place. Companies with a closed agenda will attempt to apply 'freedom' or 'open' certification and recognition to their products if allowed. Loop-holes, back doors and flaws in any part of the GBN reasoning will be taken advantage of.
Indeed. I'm suggesting that we work out what data we need and then gather it so that we can understand exactly what types of activities we are intending to draw a line between.
This suggests that some ideals need to underpin the GBN 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.
Also, one may harbour a felon, or nourish one of the kings enemies, there is room to say that one has aided someone else who lives by the four freedoms and supports the GNU manifesto; i.e. merely a "friend." This is not quite the same as (2) below.
(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) 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.
yep.
Perhaps the most difficult matter is (2). That's where - as Georg and others pointed out - big nasty holes could appear. Transition methods are not something that will be easy to work out. On the other hand, to refuse a method of transition would marginalize the GBN in the context of computing in general and fail companies that have a genuine wish to convert.
Let there be a lowly level of membership that involves paying money and providing information which will be used to provide awards of recognition and value. Those lowly members will have provided
support by
giving money to kick-start the whole thing. Membership rules can always be tightened a year later to cut out those who are seeking a cheap
badge.
I don't agree with the idea of having loose rules and tightening them later.
The loose rules provide low membership which we CAN discontinue when such low membership is no longer appropriate, such as when "friends" become "hangers-on." Higher membership will have higher rules reflected in (3) above.
I believe the thought behind this suggestion is to promote inclusion, and that's great, but I further believe that such an action would undermine the legitimacy of the GBN. Consistency is very important and the GBN will be under both close appraisal and pressure when it is launched. There are certainly interest groups who would use any indication of confusion, lack of cohesion or coherency as an opportunity for criticism.
It would be far better if the GBN had classification problems, membership remit and organizational structure fully formed before it goes public. This would make it easier to sell, would make it more robust, and ensure that critics could only judge it for what it is: a network to bring software freedom into the business arena.
I quite agree, hence my suggestion that we look at areas of classification and the range of values within each classification that relevant companies and their activities fall into.
Once we have that, we draw a couple of lines to delineate requirements for levels of membership and identify supporting activities to help companies progress.
Sam
-----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
I haven't really read all of this thread, so I don't really know why GBN is suddenly a hot topic again after all this time.
Is the proposal here that GBN applies to businesses themselves, or to the products that GBN businesses sell?
As a consumer, I think the latter is vastly more interesting to me, but the discussion seems to be more about the former.
Cheers,
Alex.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Alex Hudson wrote:
Is the proposal here that GBN applies to businesses themselves, or to the products that GBN businesses sell? As a consumer, I think the latter is vastly more interesting to me, but the discussion seems to be more about the former.
The existing proposals for the GBN definition determine what types of products and services an eligible business can offer, thereby leading the discussion to consideration of the business structure behind the products and services. A key issue might be that the GBN potentially precludes certain types of corporate activity. For instance, the existing GBN definition does not allow support provision for both free and non-free applications. This restriction has an ethical foundation, leading us back towards discussions of what constitutes a Free Software Business.
I believe it's true that consumers will be interested in the products and services offered. However, if the GBN were only to apply to the actual products and services (with no provision for business structure) it would become a product label applied when convenient. This may occur in the same way that the OSI trademark can be applied if a product uses one of their approved licenses. It is therefore possible that Bob's Non-Free Software Services could offer one application that would get a GBN stamp, while continuing to offer and support a full range of non-free products.
The really tricky bit comes when we discuss how to provide a fair avenue of entry to the GBN for companies that currently offer non-free services. In short, how is it possible to offer a method of conversion to Free Software without opening the GBN to abuse and misapplication?
Shane
PS: Hey Alex, I'll be in London in August for a talk at GLLUG. Want to meet for a coffee?
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@opendawn.com m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire) w: www.opendawn.com - --- OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 09:54 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
I believe it's true that consumers will be interested in the products and services offered. However, if the GBN were only to apply to the actual products and services (with no provision for business structure) it would become a product label applied when convenient. This may occur in the same way that the OSI trademark can be applied if a product uses one of their approved licenses. It is therefore possible that Bob's Non-Free Software Services could offer one application that would get a GBN stamp, while continuing to offer and support a full range of non-free products.
Right. But I guess what I'm asking implicitly is, what is the goal of the GBN?
If the GBN only applies to companies whose entire product and service range excludes any non-free software (for the GNU definition of non-free software), it could only apply to a very few companies, I think.
While that's not a problem of the definition, it is a problem for the utility of the definition. If GBN is to be useful, it has to generate or help identify a market for free software solutions. Businesses have to recognise the value in being in the GBN. If they don't, it just becomes a marginal label that a few businesses use, few consumers recognise, and (more importantly) doesn't convert non-free businesses into free software businesses.
At the end of the day, I'm not sure I particularly care whether or not a business sells non-free software. I'm also a vegetarian, but I'm not sufficiently ardent that I won't visit a restaurant that serves meat: I won't visit one that doesn't sell enough vegetarian courses, though. For most, this is also an ethical issue, but the variety of vegetarian food available (which in the UK is a lot - much better than most of Europe, and certainly the US) hasn't come about by militant vegetarians only visiting those restaurants that don't serve meat.
Food also gives us other examples: South African products during apartheid, salad products from Spain/Africa, anything from Nestle. I consider[ed] buying these products as ethically dubious, as do/did many other people in this country. However, the decision as to whether or not to stock such products is a matter for the supplier as far as I'm concerned: and in fact, Nestle matches up quite closely with your "Bob's non-free software services" example, because they supply Fair Trade goods.
The example of Nestle is kind of a good one. They're a corner case; a company who are quite commonly thought of as being corporately unethical, yet have ethically-branded produce. I don't get hung up about that though; I don't think it's an issue. What is more important is that Fair Trade produce are now commonly available in all supermarkets in a wide range and variety, and it encourages people to think ethically. That would demonstrably not have happened if only select companies whose whole operation could carry the mark were allowed to use it.
Cheers,
Alex.
|| On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:00:45 +0100 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> Right. But I guess what I'm asking implicitly is, what is the ah> goal of the GBN?
Please see my mails of last week, they should be in the archive.
ah> Food also gives us other examples: [...]
All comparisons are limited. I find the comparison with food limited to the extent of being misleading, and not very useful, to be honest.
Software has very strong network effects, that apply force on others, and take away their freedom of choice in a digital society.
This is not the case for food in general. But if you wanted to compare software to food, you'd have to think of a world where a food supplier was threatening to become so dominant that it could force everyone on the planet to eat meat under threat of starvation.
And I guess you would care about that situation.
Proprietary software always seeks to establish a monopoly, and always means control over others on a very intimate level. So I don't ever think that doing business based on proprietary software a good or acceptable idea.
That said: Different forms of proprietary software have differences in the strength and range of impact. Also this world is not perfect, and change takes time.
So we should IMHO always criticise proprietary software, but give people a chance to change, supporting them for taking steps in the right direction.
Doing that collectively as a community of developers, businesses and customers is probably the fundamental idea behind the GBN.
Regards, Georg
On 26-Jun-2006, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Proprietary software always seeks to establish a monopoly, and always means control over others on a very intimate level. So I don't ever think that doing business based on proprietary software a good or acceptable idea.
Thanks for succinctly expressing what I've wanted to say a number of times in this thread.
That said: Different forms of proprietary software have differences in the strength and range of impact. Also this world is not perfect, and change takes time.
So we should IMHO always criticise proprietary software, but give people a chance to change, supporting them for taking steps in the right direction.
Yes. I don't think we should hide the goal we're seeking: for all software to be free, and for no organisation to act contrary to users' freedom.
That doesn't mean we can't note specific progress made toward that ideal. It does mean we must be very careful to endorse business practices only to the extent they move the business toward that ideal, and not as a satisfactory end in themselves.
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 12:22 +0200, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
ah> Right. But I guess what I'm asking implicitly is, what is the ah> goal of the GBN?
Please see my mails of last week, they should be in the archive.
They don't really answer the question, though. I get that it's about giving free software businesses an advantage, but what is it seeking to actually do? For example, would it be more concerned with giving a higher profile to existing free software businesses, or would it prioritise getting non-free businesses to change their methods?
All comparisons are limited. I find the comparison with food limited to the extent of being misleading, and not very useful, to be honest.
Software has very strong network effects, that apply force on others, and take away their freedom of choice in a digital society.
I don't think it's an unfair comparison. Food also has network effects, but they tend to be in production rather than consumption. The take-up of sterile GM cash crops is one good example: it's the DRM of the seed world. The production of salad is another: there are large regions of the world, such as Kenya, where people are in drought conditions and are ill from thirst because the water is being used to feed lettuces. The choice to eat out-of-season produce in the West definitely does affect people in other regions of the world - it's not an issue of personal ethics.
Of course it's not a exact comparison, but then nothing ever is. I think we can learn a lot from Fair Trade type systems, though.
We should never support proprietary software. But, I'm not sure of the utility of exclusively supporting those who never produce or support proprietary software though. We've already seen that there is no fine line between those who are "good" and those who are "bad": Shane's point about how long you should be allowed to "convert" customers is a good one, and doubtless there are an infinity of other situations like that.
If the GBN is solely about applauding those businesses who do work with only free software, then I suppose it will have its niche. I don't see that type of system encouraging other businesses to change, though, and that strikes me as the more important issue.
Cheers,
Alex.
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [...]
Of course it's not a exact comparison, but then nothing ever is. I think we can learn a lot from Fair Trade type systems, though.
I agree, but I tend to think we can learn "how not to do it" as Fair Trade approves horrors like "baby milk" Nestle and "don't mention our salmonella pipe" Cadburys, lets the supply chain pocket much of the premium commanded by the Fair Trade mark and is mostly silent about the unfair traders. It's only when they're in multi-organisation alliances that I've noticed anything about the problems of unfair trade from the Fairtrade Foundation. They try to promote a comparative "this is better" label without talking about what it's better than. Madness.
[...]
If the GBN is solely about applauding those businesses who do work with only free software, then I suppose it will have its niche. I don't see that type of system encouraging other businesses to change, though, and that strikes me as the more important issue.
I'd be quite happy for it to label branches of a business, but I think the product level is far too open to exploit. If there is a product level, there should also be some general whole-business standard to exclude a NestleSoft.
I'd also be happy to see multi-level contrib and main labels.
Hope that helps,
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 12:13 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com [...]
If the GBN is solely about applauding those businesses who do work with only free software, then I suppose it will have its niche. I don't see that type of system encouraging other businesses to change, though, and that strikes me as the more important issue.
I'd be quite happy for it to label branches of a business, but I think the product level is far too open to exploit. If there is a product level, there should also be some general whole-business standard to exclude a NestleSoft.
I'm tempted to agree.
But, I don't know if this is a heart ruling the head thing. Even if the GBN was extravagantly successful, no big non-free software developer would convert to free software overnight (I actually think any business which did that would be almost doomed to failure, much in the same way you can get a car to turn over if you do a hand-brake turn).
So if they don't convert immediately, the options are to convert piecemeal, or to continue the way they are. If we don't support companies moving piecemeal, we're implicitly signalling we actually want the other option, I think. But if we really want businesses to change their ways, we surely have to support them converting piecemeal, and reward them along the way?
Of course, there is the whole honesty/intention thing. Could Nestle ever become an ethical company? Is L'Oreal becoming ethical for buying The Body Shop? Probably not; they're both companies of a size where they are actively amoral.
At the end of the day, this is actually pretty moot anyway. Eg., if Bob's Non-free Services couldn't get into GBN even though they had a line of free products, they simply set up a subsidiary company "Bob's Free Software Services", who only sell free products and can happily enter the GBN. If the GBN becomes of sufficient value, you cannot stop anyone fairly entering so long as they meet the criteria.
Some companies will never be acceptable to some people - e.g., I doubt anyone would want Microsoft in the GBN, no matter how committed to free software they were (witness, to some extent, the fact no-one accepts their OpenXML specification). I don't think you can design them out, though.
Cheers,
Alex.
|| On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:49:09 +0100 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> They don't really answer the question, though.
So let me try to summarise them once more:
Right now, GBN is actually doing nothing.
It is eventually supposed to help Free Software based business, by carefully promoting only Free Software based activities of all companies, even those who have some proprietary activities, aiming at a careful balance to encourage all companies to evolve further towards Free Software, which will give those that are already genuinely Free Software an advantage.
FSFE will seek to start this initiative once it can be confident to do it justice, which is largely a resource issue. As long as we cannot be sure to live up to this task, we will not start it.
ah> If the GBN is solely about applauding those businesses who do ah> work with only free software, then I suppose it will have its ah> niche.
As explained before: That is not what the GBN aims to do.
Regards, Georg