MJ Ray wrote:
That reminds me of a question that makes me uncomfortable because I
don't have a good answer: why is selling licences to use the name or
symbols of that certificate any more ethical than selling licences to
use software? How can you teach the ideas behind free software when
controlling a certification scheme which necessarily denies people
those freedom to share their certificate power and so on?
Being able to reuse names/symbols is a mark of trust, which free
software doesn't come with. It's almost the inverse: free software comes
with basically no warranty, and I don't think it would work if you
required distributors to warrant the quality of their changes/etc.
That's effectively what certification schemes represent, and the
reputation of the scheme basically stands or falls on the services of
its members.
However in most cases Directors of companies are graduates because the
system requires that as a basic pre-requisite. [...]
What system? It's not in question 10 of
http://www.companies-house.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gbf1.shtml#one
"10. Can anyone be a company director?
In general terms, yes, but there are some rules. [...]"
I agree with MJ here - I don't know of any company regulation requiring
Directors to be graduates, and I set up my last company about four weeks
ago from scratch. I didn't say anything about my qualifications one way
or another.
Cheers,
Alex.
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
