-----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
However, I believe more pragmatism is called for in the basic GNU Business Network Definition principles.
Freedom and practicality don't go hand in hand.
El Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:46:26PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt deia:
However, I believe more pragmatism is called for in the basic GNU Business Network Definition principles.
Freedom and practicality don't go hand in hand.
They do. It's always more practical to be free than to be enslaved. The problem is you can't always have all you want, so sometimes you accept less freedom for exchange of something else. That depends on the options you have at each moment.
I haven't read anything outside this list, sorry. But my problem with the views that companies supporting some propietary software should be accepted in the GNUBN is that the the GNUBN loses all significance for me.
It's only very few fanatical companies that don't use or support some free program or other. Once you accept mixed companies, it's difficult to set any limits. And I as apotential employee can no longer rely on a GNUBN company s an employer that guarantees that what I'll learn there will be on free software, and as a customer I can't trust a company that makes a living out of supporting propietary software to work for me or recommend solutions, since they may impose propietary software on me.
I'd rather have a clear meaning for GNUBN and few companies included, at least initially that having many companies which I don't know anything about by just its GNUBN sticker, because mixed companies are allowed. If I still have to sort out myself which companies will ensure my freedom as customer or employee even between GNUBN, then I don't need GNUBN at all.
I't like ecological food (is that the English name?). It may be more or less minoritarian, and very restrictive if you require all the food chain to be free from chemicals, etc. But if you don't then the label is meaningless to consumers.
However, I believe more pragmatism is called for in the basic GNU Business Network Definition principles.
Freedom and practicality don't go hand in hand.
They do. It's always more practical to be free than to be enslaved. The problem is you can't always have all you want, so sometimes you accept less freedom for exchange of something else. That depends on the options you have at each moment.
It depends on how you view it, sometimes it is more practical to use non-free software instead of developing a free alternative.
I haven't read anything outside this list, sorry. But my problem with the views that companies supporting some propietary software should be accepted in the GNUBN is that the the GNUBN loses all significance for me.
It's only very few fanatical companies that don't use or support some free program or other. Once you accept mixed companies, it's difficult to set any limits. And I as apotential employee can no longer rely on a GNUBN company s an employer that guarantees that what I'll learn there will be on free software, and as a customer I can't trust a company that makes a living out of supporting propietary software to work for me or recommend solutions, since they may impose propietary software on me.
I'd rather have a clear meaning for GNUBN and few companies included, at least initially that having many companies which I don't know anything about by just its GNUBN sticker, because mixed companies are allowed. If I still have to sort out myself which companies will ensure my freedom as customer or employee even between GNUBN, then I don't need GNUBN at all.
You put it well, and I couldn't agree more with you.
Happy hacking!
Can we please move this discussion to one list. I'm on all three lists that this thread is constantly being cross-post across and I am getting three partial copies of the thread every day.
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:19 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
This approach ties Free Software into the company mission statement rather than the company development model.
Absolutely. The development model is a tool that the companies can use to achieve the ethical aim. With the definition of FSB rotating around the ethical concepts, not only companies that develop software can be included but also other kinds, like law firms or architecture firms.
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.
IMHO the adherence to the FSB principle can also be made outside of the mission statement, just like any other certification is added on top of existing missions.
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.
You are right in being worried about a network that is made of few nodes: it makes very little sense, indeed. This is why I personally prefer to concentrate into finding an acceptable definition of FSB first and then see what to do with it :)
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.
In some respects, you are right: business out there still largely depend on 'obscure non-free software' to run and it is still quite difficult to tell them 'don't use SAP anymore', especially since they spent so much implementing it *and* there is no free substitute for it. So, for example, and using the the ethical point of view: a manufacturing company uses SAP for its production/management line but sells robots powered only by Free Software (Linux and other utilities) and participates actively into the Linux community, contributing patches and more. Would this company qualify as a Free SW Biz?
If we have confidence in our model
Do we have such confidence to sell it to a 45 years old bizman that feeds 5/10 programmers selling proprietary licenses? Even if he barely makes the end of the month, I think we still don't have enough arguments to draw exclusive circles like the GBN and we need to come up with something that is inclusive instead.
thanks for the discussion stef
On 12-Jun-2006, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 15:19 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
If we have confidence in our model
Do we have such confidence to sell it to a 45 years old bizman that feeds 5/10 programmers selling proprietary licenses?
Their business involves restricting the freedom of their customers with proprietary licenses. What's the question here?
Even if he barely makes the end of the month,
I don't see how the failure of a particular business model to make a profit is of concern for a definition revolving around software freedom.
I think we still don't have enough arguments to draw exclusive circles like the GBN and we need to come up with something that is inclusive instead.
What goal are you assuming here? My understanding is that the goal of the GNU Business Network is to allow third parties to easily identify free software businesses, according to a particular definition.
Indeed, a strict definition is even *more* helpful: the business can easily tell whether or not they meet the definition, and what actions would make the difference.
It's completely up to the particular business whether they meet that definition. If they think it's worth the benefits, they have it within their own power to be included.
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 18:54 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Their business involves restricting the freedom of their customers with proprietary licenses. What's the question here?
The question is that it is not banal to tell a bizman to completely change his business model, that's it. Shane was saying:
If we have confidence in our model - and if our model is truly better
and I just pointed out that so far there is not enough evidence that free software business models can solve all problems. Remember that the Free Sw Community is a recognized expert of Free Sw, not of Business, therefore simple answers like 'Redhat is profitable' is not acceptable.
What goal are you assuming here? My understanding is that the goal of the GNU Business Network is to allow third parties to easily identify free software businesses, according to a particular definition.
The goals of GBN are not set, AFAIK, therefore I am trying to avoid talking about it. Set it aside and concentrate on defining what a Free Sw Business is. Once we have a definition then we will see who fits in it and what we can do with them.
regards stef
On 12-Jun-2006, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 18:54 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
Their business involves restricting the freedom of their customers with proprietary licenses. What's the question here?
The question is that it is not banal to tell a bizman to completely change his business model, that's it.
I don't think making a definition is telling anyone to do anything.
Shane was saying:
If we have confidence in our model - and if our model is truly betterand I just pointed out that so far there is not enough evidence that free software business models can solve all problems. Remember that the Free Sw Community is a recognized expert of Free Sw, not of Business, therefore simple answers like 'Redhat is profitable' is not acceptable.
That's right. It's hard work making a business model, and requires particular expertise that is not clearly related to expertise in free software. I don't see anyone recommending that we come up with business models for anyone. I don't think that would be a good use of our skills.
What we *can* do is define criteria that a business needs to meet to be called a "free software business". That's not telling anyone what to do -- but it is telling the world what standards we expect.
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
Do we have such confidence to sell it to a 45 years old bizman that feeds 5/10 programmers selling proprietary licenses? Even if he barely makes the end of the month, I think we still don't have enough arguments to draw exclusive circles like the GBN and we need to come up with something that is inclusive instead.
thanks for the discussion stef
I've stood back on this discussion but this post echoes my conclusions this morning, the choice is clear. We can go for a "correct club" or an "improvement association".
Both types of oranisation have a long tradition; which will best serve FSF aims?
As Stef makes clear, some businesses deal in software where there is no open solutions; maybe even they are adding open elements to proprietary software?
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.
The organisation would best serve FSF aims if it helped businesses approach the levels of virtue that they currently recognize and can achieve. Such businesses are noble within their scope of understanding, which the organisation could help change.
I recall being taught that none of my body cells are the ones I was born with but I am still "me." I am glad I was upgraded cell at a time instead of being replaced which I would have resisted. The same will be true of businesses.
Sam
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.
Rudy Gevaert schrieb:
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.
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more like a declaration of the intent to become a good one. I think we need a pure high standard in the end like the others suggested. But to make it easier and to find more recognition there should be a lower level, which will only be granted for a fixed time. After that period you loose all rights to attain a low level grade. Of course if you meet the pure standard you are welcome. Something like that the key point for me is the loss of value through time.
regards Christian PS: first post, i hope it is not too bad :)
Christian Schröder wrote:
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more like a declaration of the intent to become a good one. I think we need a pure high standard in the end like the others suggested. But to make it easier and to find more recognition there should be a lower level, which will only be granted for a fixed time. After that period you loose all rights to attain a low level grade. Of course if you meet the pure standard you are welcome. Something like that the key point for me is the loss of value through time.
This is a good observation and further consideration shows that it is self-depracating on a natural scale.
If one company obtains a low-level designation, and no other companies in the same field obtain any designation, then this company is leader in free software for that field, and quite possibly pushing the boundary.
As that field becomes more free and more companies in the same field obtain the same or better designations the value of the lower designation will fall.
Those companies who truly support FSF ideals and aims will stay near the leading edge with the higher available designations, thus the aim of pushing boundaries in the more difficult fields as achieved and only companies who support these ideals receive designations of persistent value.
Sam
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:35PM +0200, Christian Schröder wrote:
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more like a declaration of the intent to become a good one.
Would you put effort in achieving something that is temporary? Or that says in it's definiation 'it's bad'?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Rudy Gevaert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:35PM +0200, Christian Schröder wrote:
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level.
Would you put effort in achieving something that is temporary? Or that says in it's definiation 'it's bad'?
I believe that there is a subtle and positive way around all of this. Rather than saying a hybrid company is 'bad' (and thus alienating a company that is friendly to our overarching cause) it might make sense to say a pure FOSS company is 'great.'
In other words to have a membership level that permits hybrid sales and support (standard membership) and a membership level for the champions of our community (excellence membership).
Rather than refusing standard members rights the excellence members could be awarded privileges.
Example: A standard member might be able to say that they are a 'member' of the GNU Business Network and they would be able to label their Free Software solutions as "Certified Free" by the GNU Business Network.
An excellence member would be able to say they are a 'core member' of the GNU Business Network, they would be able to label their Free Software solutions as "Certified Free", and they would also be able to label their company (tangible benefit) as being "Certified Free."
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
On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 12:05 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Example: A standard member might be able to say that they are a 'member'of the GNU Business Network[...]
Before we jump in defining the GBN (that, as Georg stated, is not a priority for FSFE) I think we all need to take a step back and define clearly what makes a 'Free Software Business'. This morning I read yet-another-request on 451 Caos Theory: http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2006/06/19/what-is-an-open-source-co...
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 10:40 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
What we *can* do is define criteria that a business needs to meet to be called a "free software business".
So, what are these criteria? How about the definitions suggested here: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/maffulli/rants/defining_free_software_business
I like to reason around 'ethics' and have suggested the following:
A company that daily accepts its social responsibility towards reaching freedom in the digital age, respecting the ideals contained in the GNU Manifesto.
but honestly I don't think it is fit, because it refers to the GNU Manifesto, that is too long and difficult to understand. Can we make a better version?
thanks stef
I like to reason around 'ethics' and have suggested the following:
A company that daily accepts its social responsibility towards reaching freedom in the digital age, respecting the ideals contained in the GNU Manifesto.
but honestly I don't think it is fit, [..]
since you explicitly mention "social responsibilty" here. i think the whole debate has a lot in common with the CSR discurse.
CSR - corporate social responsibilty. it is the new hype word that everyone uses. the ideas behind it is that corporations do not want to go through the tedious process of convincing/bribing government to make laws in their interest but to make them themself.
for the consumers who care, the corporations wants to present themself as "good citicens" who act "socialially and environmentally responsible". (so that the consumers do not see a need to ask for laws).
in order to be credible the corporations seek the certification by respected NGOs. some NGOs see this as a good thing: so they can charge the corporations for consulting... and the corporations see it as a good thing as they can try to bribe the NGOs with these consulting fees... and it it does not work, that is if the certificatition requires too much from them, they can still search for an other/cheaper NGO.... or found their own fake NGOs themself...etc..
an other problem ist: the corporation choose one cheap field where they can present themself favorable where they do bad things in an other. e.g. donate a bit of money to amnesty international and have huge environmental pollution on the other side.. or be "green" on the one side and exploit people on the other side..etc..
another field of problmes with big coproation is how these standards are passed on to the supply chain....
as you can see: i do have a rather pessimistic perspective on these certification thingy... but this does not mean that i suggest that you do not do it at all. just to be aware of the potential problems.
on conclusion could be:
2 have labels: one positiv and one negative. "GNU friendly bussiness" and "hostile to free software" (e.g. because they do not give out hardware specs for drivers). so if one corporation wants to polish up their public image with a CSR report they could go for the first one but they will not want that someone who googles the company name finds them listet on the list of bad corporations....
greetings mond.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
franz schaefer wrote:
I like to reason around 'ethics' and have suggested the following: A company that daily accepts its social responsibility towards reaching freedom in the digital age, respecting the ideals contained in the GNU Manifesto.
since you explicitly mention "social responsibilty" here. i think the whole debate has a lot in common with the CSR discurse. CSR - corporate social responsibilty. it is the new hype word that everyone uses. the ideas behind it is that corporations do not want to go through the tedious process of convincing/bribing government to make laws in their interest but to make them themself.
CSR is a promising avenue. It appears to affect very large companies more than Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Leveraging CSR would allow the GBN to be marketed as a positive solution for companies wishing to gain social legitimacy. However, CSR depends on a company making enough money to have time to fret about its public social image. Most companies are so busy just staying afloat that they can't invest resources into these matters. In other words, CSR is a great selling point to large enterprises but it might make up a much smaller part of the decision-making process in a SME.
It would be interesting to read through CSR literature and to examine how GBN marketing could utilize terms and concepts that would resonate with the CSR approach. It might create greater 'buy-in' from firms that are currently non-free.
2 have labels: one positiv and one negative. "GNU friendly bussiness" and "hostile to free software" (e.g. because they do not give out hardware specs for drivers). so if one corporation wants to polish up their public image with a CSR report they could go for the first one but they will not want that someone who googles the company name finds them listet on the list of bad corporations....
I believe this idea may have merit. A list of companies that do *not* support Free Software may be useful for people making partnership and purchasing decisions. However, at the same time this would potentially introduce an air of negativity to the GBN. There is a danger with introducing a concept like this that freedom friendly companies may be alienated. A degree of direct negativity towards xyz company might unnerve perfectly innocent parties. It may also open the GBN to criticism as an 'extremist' network with a hidden agenda. In other words, such a list could be used by critical parties to formulate charges against the GBN.
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
"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk
[...] It may also open the GBN to criticism as an 'extremist' network with a hidden agenda. In other words, such a list could be used by critical parties to formulate charges against the GBN.
It could, but would that be seen as reasonable, or leave the accusers open to criticism as an extremist organisation with a hidden agenda of disrupting their customers? We can look at other organisations that carry out both positive and negative labelling, such as the Plain English Campaign, which were able to overcome the early criticism of their efforts, and copy their tactics when needed.
Hope that helps,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MJ Ray wrote:
It could, but would that be seen as reasonable, or leave the accusers open to criticism as an extremist organisation with a hidden agenda of disrupting their customers? We can look at other organisations that carry out both positive and negative labelling, such as the Plain English Campaign, which were able to overcome the early criticism of their efforts, and copy their tactics when needed.
I believe that your suggestion of examining groups like the Plain English Campaign has serious merit. If people have already dealt with the issues the GBN is likely to encounter, they can provide suggestions for best practice. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Your comment about accusers being open to criticism if they started to pick holes in the GBN is valid to an extent, but it's not very good for marketing to respond to criticism with counter-criticism. It ends up creating a situation that looks messy to those outside. The danger would be that such tactics can reduce 'consumer' confidence. It would be better to prevent such a situation arising in the first place (or have the GBN so well planned and worded that any criticism does not 'stick').
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
"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk
[...] In other words, CSR is a great selling point to large enterprises but it might make up a much smaller part of the decision-making process in a SME.
It might also backfire horribly. I think casting GBN as a feel-good CSR initiative would contaminate it for a whole range of potential collaborators and supporters: "Right now a more accurate meaning of 'CSR' would be 'corporate suppression of regulation'. Multinationals are islands of central planning in a sea of failed markets. CSR is used as a PR weapon to help corporations maintain market power, when it is precisely that power that is the problem. [...] We need road signs and traffic lights for corporate juggernauts, not a donkey derby of promises, good wishes and crossed fingers." -- Andrew Simms, policy director, New Economics Foundation, in The Observer 2006-06-18
For a more direct example: cooperatives have concern for community as part of the foundation and it's not just a public relations exercise for members. I think we should help make this important structural change, as in other bad markets of old: "In 1876 a travelling salesman/auctioneer [...] decided to assist the widow of a railwayman by donating five per cent of his takings [...] The local traders decided that with the sale of 1400lbs of tea, he needed to be stopped from trading [...] The court decided to let him off with two hours detention until the end of the sitting but he decided to leave the traders a legacy and from his knowledge of co-operative societies urged his supporters to hold a meeting in his tent and form a Society." -- Anglia Society : A Potted History
but it sometimes feels like FSF* prefers to court Big Software and their big lawyers and ignore the possibility of directly influencing markets. Please don't let GBN fail in a similar way by bending to approve those who sell free software short. We need a CSR tie-in and its jargon about as much as we need to utilise a multitined eating implement on our cranium.
Best wishes,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
MJ Ray wrote:
"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk
[...] In other words, CSR is a great selling point to large enterprises but it might make up a much smaller part of the decision-making process in a SME.
It might also backfire horribly. I think casting GBN as a feel-good CSR initiative would contaminate it for a whole range of potential collaborators and supporters:
Yes, Franz did suggest that CSR dialogs are open to abuse. That is not to say that all CSR initiatives fail or are a waste of time.
As you pointed out contaminating the GBN would make no sense. If CSR was to be used as a selling point for larger companies it would have to be in such as a way as to: (a) Prevent abuse (b) Encourage pro-active adoption of Free Software
That's no easy task.
Later in your post you mentioned cooperatives. Cooperative groups appear to be an ideal market for Free Software and concepts like the GBN in general. They already have a strong ethical manifesto. A little review of cooperative constitutions and papers might do no harm. Things like the cooperative supermarket in the UK appear to be massively successful.
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 10:40 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
What we *can* do is define criteria that a business needs to meet to be called a "free software business".
I like to reason around 'ethics' and have suggested the following: A company that daily accepts its social responsibility towards reaching freedom in the digital age, respecting the ideals contained in the GNU Manifesto. but honestly I don't think it is fit, because it refers to the GNU Manifesto, that is too long and difficult to understand. Can we make a better version?
Hi Stefano!
If we are to attempt to create an ethical definition of a Free Software Business without the GNU Manifesto then perhaps we can refer to the ideal of the four freedoms of software?
Example: "A company that daily accepts its social responsibility towards reaching freedom in th digital age, respecting the ideals enshrine in the four freedoms of the GNU GPL."
Two things about this bother me. (1) the use of the GNU GPL as a term (it's not accessible to people who don't already know about it). (2) The wording sounds a little clunky.
Using the same concept but refining the words...
Example: "A company that embraces its social responsibility in promoting freedom in the digital age, respecting the ideals of unrestricted freedom in the use, modification and improvement of technology."
This type of wording might have the advantage of not referring to software but instead encouraging an overarching commitment to digital freedom. Perhaps like the manifesto without needing so many words?
The problem with ethics is that businesses often don't prioritize them in the decision-making process. If a business does not approach problems from an ethically marketed perspective (e.g. Starbucks, Bodyshop) then it might be hard to 'sell' this idea. Then again, there are many business papers emphasizing the importance of corporate ethics. These can be used to give credibility to the idea of adopting a statement like the above.
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
Stefano Maffulli stef@zoomata.com
So, what are these criteria? How about the definitions suggested here: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/maffulli/rants/defining_free_software_business
I agree that the GNU Manifesto is too long and difficult to understand for this purpose.
Considering only ethics also could lead you into some absurdities, such as including proprietary-software-dependant cooperatives who otherwise follow the ethical principles listed at http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html (personally, I think they're compromising their autonomy, but it seems it's not enough to matter to most people yet).
Simon Phipps's definition seems the closest of those listed.
Hope that helps,
Rudy Gevaert schrieb:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:35PM +0200, Christian Schröder wrote:
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more like a declaration of the intent to become a good one.
Would you put effort in achieving something that is temporary? Or that says in it's definiation 'it's bad'?
ok maybe i said it wrong. I didn't mean saying it is bad at all. Just saying this a temporary level on the way to the even better one. I meant something like an apprenticeship. And most business go for short term or temporary all the time, thats why why we have most of the problems in the first place IMO. I think there is a need for a pure version, so it can't get corrupted cause of interpretations. But if just go for all, it will be a long way to get something from it. As a starting catalysator we could use a non-pure version. This has to be limited in time, otherwise most of the companys go just for it.
regards Christian
Christian Schröder wrote:
Rudy Gevaert schrieb:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:35PM +0200, Christian Schröder wrote:
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more like a declaration of the intent to become a good one.
Would you put effort in achieving something that is temporary? Or that says in it's definiation 'it's bad'?
ok maybe i said it wrong. I didn't mean saying it is bad at all. Just saying this a temporary level on the way to the even better one. I meant something like an apprenticeship. And most business go for short term or temporary all the time, thats why why we have most of the problems in the first place IMO. I think there is a need for a pure version, so it can't get corrupted cause of interpretations. But if just go for all, it will be a long way to get something from it. As a starting catalysator we could use a non-pure version. This has to be limited in time, otherwise most of the companys go just for it.
I think the companies that surpass the non-pure version will sufficiently de-value the non-pure version, and the potential to do this will attract companies to obtain pure certification.
If required, lets add sufficient financial penalties ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H membership fees for the non-pure version to fund campaigns and incentives for those who would become pure.
We do need a pure version, but FSF aims are gained more by existing companies being made pure, so we ought to chose a model that will tend towards this behaviour, I realse that we are discussing the best way to do this.
Sam
Rudy Gevaert wrote:
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:13:35PM +0200, Christian Schröder wrote:
You can make 2 levels and say in the description for the lower one, that in fact it is wrong to stay in this level. It's like an msce which is a degree, but if you talk about it everybody will laugh. But still you need it to get the higher ones. So basically the lower level is more like a declaration of the intent to become a good one.
Would you put effort in achieving something that is temporary? Or that says in it's definiation 'it's bad'?
We do it all the time. I got a diploma 1/3 of the way through my degree. It was an important morale boost to me.
One that I scoff at now, but I recognize I needed it then.
Sam
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
|| On Thu Jun 8 16:20:45 2006 || shane at shaneland.co.uk (Shane M. Coughlan) wrote:
smc> This approach ties Free Software into the company mission smc> statement rather than the company development model.
This seems to hint towards a fundamental misunderstanding that is relatively common and was promoted by the "Open Source" attempts at marketing Free Software, so is probably worth pointing out:
Free Software is *not* a development model!
This is relatively obvious when taking a look at the Free Software Definition, [1,2] which does not mention the development model, at all. Whether something is Free Software is purely determined by the freedom it gives to its users and developers, not how it is being developed by them.
There are indeed various development models in the Free Software universe, and the discussion about their advantages and disadvantages is an ongoing struggle: Some people tend to prefer very closed, tightly controlled models, some people tend to prefer very open, collaborative models. Some people are in between or advocate a project evolution that will switch between these two occasionally.
The latter is often mistakenly identified as being "Open Source", but that is wrong by the very definition of that term -- because the Open Source Definition also says nothing about development models. Maybe it would be a more useful term if it were redefined to mean collaborative and open development models, but right now it does not.
It is this fundamental misunderstanding that is at the base of announcements you can see by many proprietary vendors who say they will switch to what they call "Open Source development models", meaning a more collaborative approach.
So while some development models may seem more effective, and some are certainly more popular, ultimately the development model has nothing to do with the question of Free Software.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] http://fsfeurope.org/documents/freesoftware.en.html
I also understood the following to be based on this misunderstanding:
smc> If we have confidence in our model - and if our model is truly smc> better - than I believe companies will find less reasons to smc> support proprietary applications with time.
And when assuming that "Free Software" and "proprietary software" are two software development models that are potentially equally valuable, and should compete on the grounds of technical issues, that statement seems sensible.
But the development model is *not* the issue, freedom is.
And in this sense, proprietary and Free Software are not equals, as one has a system-inherent drive towards dependency and monopolisation in information technology, with resulting undue concentration of power in the hands of a few that threatens democracy and human rights, while the other supports freedom from such depedencies, and thus the protection of democratic structures in a digital world, as well as freedom of competition, diversity and sustainable local business.
Let me try to explain some of the thoughts behind the GBN Definition:
Because proprietary software is still the dominating paradigm in the economic world, we wish to shift that paradigm towards freedom, for the best of society.
This does not mean that those who currently hold their monopolies and a very large part of this world's economic power necessarily agree with our wanting to distribute this to a larger group of more sustainable companies.
Indeed we know many of them disagree, and try everything to prevent that shifting of paradigms -- including using their immense economic power against Free Software, turning it into an uphill battle for Free Software companies.
This is made harder by other companies who are using limited Free Software activities to distract from their proprietary cash-cows, or falsely advocating proprietary software under the label of Free Software.
Both damage the market for genuine Free Software companies.
The idea of the GNU Business Network is to undo that damage, and to provide a counterweight, while helping Free Software based business to interconnect, and grow.
For this, we've been working very hard in trying to find a balance between giving genuine Free Software companies the advantage they deserve, while not turning away those who are on the way, but not quite there yet -- transition takes time.
I wrote the GBN Definition in a collaborative effort with the FSFE Team plus Richard Stallman, and we were specifically thinking of companies such as IBM, who still have mostly proprietary undertakings, but also an increasing amount of Free Software work. It was our understanding then that they most likely could participate in the GBN, and were indeed welcome to do so.
But we were aiming to find the balance between encouraging those Free Software activities, while not wanting to endorse the proprietary efforts, or giving them an undue advantage over other companies that are already more fundamentally Free Software oriented.
I don't claim this balance is perfect as it was drafted right now, but we have to be careful to not disadvantage existing genuine Free Software companies for wanting to attract the more proprietary ones.
Regards, Georg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Thu Jun 8 16:20:45 2006 || shane at shaneland.co.uk (Shane M. Coughlan) wrote:
smc> This approach ties Free Software into the company mission smc> statement rather than the company development model.
This seems to hint towards a fundamental misunderstanding that is relatively common and was promoted by the "Open Source" attempts at marketing Free Software, so is probably worth pointing out: Free Software is *not* a development model! This is relatively obvious when taking a look at the Free Software Definition, [1,2] which does not mention the development model, at all. Whether something is Free Software is purely determined by the freedom it gives to its users and developers, not how it is being developed by them.
Free Software is a concept fundamentally grounded in ethics. However, a company needs to understand how this concept can apply to their operational model. Adoption of free software in a company means a shift away from the mindset that accepted propriety software. This shift inherently implies altering the way that company works. A company will want to know about Free Software development models (being those models used by Free Software development projects) so that they can access the practical value of adoption (be it partially or otherwise).
But the development model is *not* the issue, freedom is.
Agreed. However, I was referring to our model or goal as being one of promoting technological freedom. This freedom is assumed to have tangible benefits for both the developers and users of free software. Freedom is the core issue for society, but for a company their perceived core issue is bottom line. We know that freedom *can* give them benefits, and we know that in time they will see that.
It is important to engage with the businesses in such a way as to promote Free Software to them, and that frequently means talking about how they can alter development models and understanding of software to become compatible with Free Software aims without compromising profit margin.
In other words, freedom is the issue but we have to 'sell' freedom to companies. They need to gets facts, figures and practical advice about how Free Software can help their development and deployment models today. Inevitably this translates into questions about systems rather than ideas. If we can provide the systems and inject the ideas we have won on both fronts; practical adoption and a greater awareness by the adopter of why freedom is important.
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
|| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:55:04 +0100 || "Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk wrote:
smc> Free Software is a concept fundamentally grounded in ethics. smc> However, a company needs to understand how this concept can smc> apply to their operational model. Adoption of free software in smc> a company means a shift away from the mindset that accepted smc> propriety software. This shift inherently implies altering the smc> way that company works.
Yes, so far we agree entirely.
Moving towards Free Software means adopting the business model to it, and most companies currently structured their business models along the lines of the proprietary world.
Helping bring about that change and supporting companies on the way is one of the fundamental ideas of the GNU Business Network.
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.
I do not have good numbers readily available, but my experience tells me that actual development makes up a relatively small part of what is generally considered the "IT industry" and that it is the business model that later drives development, not the other way round.
Even when only considering the proprietary world, services are a much larger market. And indeed this market can be expected to grow in a Free Software world, as more degrees of economic freedom can be expected to also bring about new business models that are impossible in the proprietary world for lack of freedom.
So staring at development may have us miss the point.
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.
That is something FSFE does not wish the GBN to do.
Regards, Georg
-----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
|| On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:03:04 +0100 || "Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk wrote:
smc> A point was made earlier in this thread that the GBN should smc> encourage members to strive for Free Software best practice. smc> Perhaps this is the area we should turn our collective smc> intelligence to, and thereby make additional headway in smc> considering how engagement can foster understanding and smc> participation.
Collecting best practice is definitely part of the idea.
As with everything, the devil is in the detail: How do you decide what is truly a Free Software best practice? How do you draw that line?
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.
Would you list them? If so, how? And how would you say no in a neutral and encouraging way if you decide that allowing to replace OpenOffice for Microsoft Office may not be in the best interest of Free Software?
It is very easy in this field to be well-meaning and end up doing something that will backfire. That is why we do not want to move in this direction until we can be reasonably sure to do it right.
We are painfully aware that people would like to see this moving faster, and indeed we would like to see this move faster ourselves. But I hope that you will understand our reasons to be careful, and agree with them.
Naturally, if you want to speed this up you can always help us move the obstacles out of the way: get involved in FSFE with your work, join the Fellowship [1] or help getting more companies interested in supporting FSFE to build these activities. ;)
Regards, Georg
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
As with everything, the devil is in the detail: How do you decide what is truly a Free Software best practice? How do you draw that line?
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.
Would you list them? If so, how? And how would you say no in a neutral and encouraging way if you decide that allowing to replace OpenOffice for Microsoft Office may not be in the best interest of Free Software?
It is very easy in this field to be well-meaning and end up doing something that will backfire. That is why we do not want to move in this direction until we can be reasonably sure to do it right.
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.
The activity you mention does have ambiguous goodness, it may be good or bad depending on how it is presented. Its goodness is secondary, it does not provide free software or make software freer but it may increase the rate of adoption of some free software which indirectly affects drivers of activities of primary goodness.
Other activities such as providing hardware specifications for GPL drivers, or sponsoring free alternatives may have unambiguous levels of goodness as well as being of primary goodness.
We are painfully aware that people would like to see this moving faster, and indeed we would like to see this move faster ourselves. But I hope that you will understand our reasons to be careful, and agree with them.
Such information will aid the taking of care in this area. It will tell us the type of activities going on and help us select the activities we wish to recognize and reward. It will also help us see which changes should occur in organisations so that we can recognize and reward them, so then we can see how to bring about these changes.
This suggestion may allow us to proceed without the need for broad consensus yet, on which activities we should support.
Various parties to this discussion have their own anecdotal evidence behind their preferred selection of supportable activities.
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.
Sam
"Georg C. F. Greve" greve@fsfeurope.org
Let me try to explain some of the thoughts behind the GBN Definition:
I like the idea of the GBND, but I am unsure what the current implementation is. I think it could fly, as long as it is possible to clearly show cases where only a subdivision is accredited. How does it work today?
It would need careful promotion, but I don't see what it would gain from letting proprietary promoters participate. It would muddy the waters and make a simple idea much less clear.
It's just not pragmatic to keep supporting someone else's legacy application which doesn't follow open standards - and if it does follow open standards, then support can be offered as part of a migration to free software. That should be OK under GBND, but that's all, in my opinion.
There are fields where the free software alternatives are very different to the proprietary ones (GIMP v Photoshop is the most oft-cited example) but I've seen so many arguing each direction for most of them, that I'm not sure "my app is better than yours" is an argument that works either way.
Regards,
|| On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:27:09 +0100 || MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
mr> I like the idea of the GBND, but I am unsure what the current mr> implementation is. I think it could fly, as long as it is mr> possible to clearly show cases where only a subdivision is mr> accredited. How does it work today?
It doesn't.
Right now the GBN is an idea waiting for the right moment to come to life -- and we hope that this moment will be sooner rather than later.
mr> It would need careful promotion, but I don't see what it would mr> gain from letting proprietary promoters participate. It would mr> muddy the waters and make a simple idea much less clear.
I agree that clarity must be central.
The question is where to draw the line(s), and how.
mr> There are fields where the free software alternatives are very mr> different to the proprietary ones (GIMP v Photoshop is the most mr> oft-cited example) but I've seen so many arguing each direction mr> for most of them, that I'm not sure "my app is better than yours" mr> is an argument that works either way.
As it is currently envisioned, the GBN would not engage in any of these technical superiority debates in any way, and I agree with you that it makes no sense to do so.
Regards, Georg