Hi all,
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:41:58 +0100 Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
I think those that use and promote use of non-free software to aid the migration to free software would be legitimate members of a USEFUL GBN.
but this isn't the same what RMS has done.
I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going for other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that are HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his own field.
I think you have to draw the line based on the "products" of a business and what is visible to the customers.
For example: A company sells server with 100% Free Software (GNU/Linux + Samba), develops Samba and sells service for the servers. They will probably have some Windows server to test their Samba-Server and to keep track of the development of the windows protocols but their "products" would be 100% Free Software so they would be a GBN Free Software Business. On the other hand a company which sells server with Free Software and non-Free Software wouldn't be a pure Free Software Business and probably not part of a GBN. Or think about a company which develops Free Software replacements for non-Free Software. Maybe they will have some of the non-Free Software to see what it does, compare the features or maintain compatibility. But they would only develop, maintain and sell Free Software so they would be a GBN Free Software Business.
Cheers, Bjoern