Hi all, On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:41:58 +0100 Sam Liddicott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- Nobody can save your freedom but YOU - become a fellow of the FSF Europe! (https://www.fsfe.org)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
