-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
I have been reviewing the GNU Business Network Definition and have a comment to make. My comment is based on version 0.9.10, located at http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/gnubiz-disc/2000-December/000014.html. I'm following up from a post by Jan-Oliver Wagner, and considering some of the points that Stefano Maffulli made previously.
Maffulli said on his blog: "I think [Free Software Businesses] should be about ethics first and business model secondarily." http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/maffulli/rants/defining_free_software_busines.... He suggests that a Free Software business should be defined by ethics rather than business model, and that a "company that daily accepts its social responsibility towards reaching freedom in the digital age, respecting the ideals contained in the GNU Manifesto" is therefore a Free Software Business.
This approach ties Free Software into the company mission statement rather than the company development model. It's not unreasonable but it leaves a very important question: what about companies that already have a mission statement that does not include the concept of explicit adherence with the GNU Manifesto? Most software and support companies fall into this particular category.
The existing GNU Business Network Definition appears to assume that companies will choose to entirely adopt Free Software. In doing so it potentially excludes a vast number of existing companies that would benefit rather than hinder our overall cause: the promotion of Free Software.
I am concerned about the section of the definition relating to "Service, Installation & Support."
Service, installation and support exclusively for Free Software is regarded as a good thing. I agree. However, some statements in this section are worrying: A company that "occasionally provides services for specific proprietary programs that do obscure jobs, in conjunction with Free Software" is regarded in a negative fashion. The same applies to a company that "normally provides services for specific proprietary programs that do obscure jobs, in conjunction with Free Software." A company is therefore being regarded in a negative light for providing support for even an obscure proprietary application. If they offer any other support for a proprietary program they are excluded from the network.
This area of the GNU Business Network Definition means that very few existing support or integration providers would qualify for the network. This is especially true of large companies with established reputations as effective support providers. Rather than encouraging existing support providers to change their deployment models it is likely to encourage them to ignore the existence of the GNU Business Network. This appears to be shooting ourselves in the foot rather than helping to unify the field of FOSS support.
The limitation that one cannot support any software one chooses is very prescriptive. We're placing a very wide exclusion order on the ability of a support company to make a choice about what services they offer. GPL code might be protected from being compiled into proprietary code through the GPL license, but it is another matter to tell companies how to run themselves. I don't think attempting to dictate mission statements and business ethics to businesses is going to win us many friends from existing companies. It is my opinion that we should give businesses the freedom to support our software *and* the freedom to support other software if they so choose.
If we have confidence in our model - and if our model is truly better - than I believe companies will find less reasons to support proprietary applications with time. Even if they don't, I do not think we should lock ourselves into a competition with proprietary companies. It is far more productive to keep pushing our work outward and to keep giving people access to technology and the means to alter/improve it.
This does not mean that companies who place Free Software at the heart of their mission should not be rewarded. I believe they should be recognised and given a great deal of credit. However, I believe more pragmatism is called for in the basic GNU Business Network Definition principles. Special recognition for pure Free Software businesses might belong elsewhere.
Regards
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@shaneland.co.uk m: +447773180107 w: www.shaneland.co.uk - --- Projects: http://mobility.opendawn.com http://gem.opendawn.com http://enigmail.mozdev.org http://www.winpt.org - --- Organisations: http://www.fsfeurope.org http://www.fsf.org http://www.labour.org.uk http://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk - --- OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc