Rudy Gevaert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:07:13PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
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.
I don't see how several (types or) levels will provide an incentive to reach a higher level.
It's not the levels that provide the incentive to reach the higher level.
The levels of a business in conjunction with levels of similar businesses convey whether or not a particular business is pushing the boundaries of open source in that sector.
This permits customers to select businesses that properly support FSF aims without requiring that we exclude all businesses that do not exactly match the FSF aims right now.
I'm suggesting that this a mixed environment would actually reach the FSF aims more, sort of like calling people to repentance before the judgement day instead of afterwards. Are we trying to convert the infidel, or damn him?
I'm told Noah preached repentance for 400 years before the flood occurred; there are business moving towards open source as fast as we can, it would be prudent to help these rather than slap them.
Its no new dilemma, the Nestle boycott folk are troubled when Nestle buy into "green" businesses. Should they boycott those too, as part of a "hate all Nestle compaign" or should they support the good and boycott the bad, and let Nestle look at changes their own balance sheet and draw their own conclusions?
I'm with the latter group, support the good where-ever it is found.
Whether this should happen with the Business Netowkr definitions or elsewhere is the question I hope, and not whether we should do it at all.
Sam
Sam