Comments On GNU Business Network Def v0.9.10

[Georg C. F. Greve]

--==-=-=
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Derek!

Sorry for the delay... I'm currently VERY busy and will probably be so
'til the end of December.=20

 || On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:10:31 -0600 (CST)
 || Derek Neighbors <d_neighbors@llamacom.com> wrote:=20

 dn> All software being developed is released under a Free Software
 dn> license accepted by the GNU Project (see
 dn> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html=3D ).

 dn> <dn>
 dn> a.  Should this be GPL compatiable license.  If GNU Biz is aiming
 dn> at the philosphy of GNU shouldnt its members be writing software
 dn> that is compatiable with its core license?  I am torn on this one
 dn> because why I think its great a company is releasing free
 dn> software if its not usable by GPL'd works it kind of defeats the
 dn> purpose of sharing with the GNU community. :(

Well. We definitely prefer the GNU General Public License, but it
would be too short-sighted to insist on it. As long as people produce
Free Software, we think it is a good idea.

 dn> b.  Also, this might be picky, but one thing that happened when
 dn> ...
 dn> Compatability is required it takes away the biggest issue of
 dn> multiple licenses.  The easy answer would be to list valid
 dn> licenses and say thats it(as in we dont support this notion of
 dn> create your own licens), but that might be too hard of a line.

A company has the right (freedom, if you will) to create their own
license. As long as it qualifies as a Free license in our sense,
that's fine. We will definitely discourage it, though, because more
licenses are very likely to increase the amount of confusion.

 dn> c.  Somehow copyright or guarantee of license needs to be
 dn> addressed.  Preference should be given to software assigned to
 dn> ...
 dn> doing things to impede the freedom of others by changing license
 dn> mid stream.  </dn>

If they change the license, their status the the Network will
change. Its as simple as that.=20

 dn> (-) Development of software under a proprietary license with the
 dn> guarantee that it will get rereleased under a proper Free
 dn> Software license no more than a year later.

 dn> <dn> This is scary.  Could it be changed to such a company would
 dn> be given a "trial" or "temporary" membership that was not full
 dn> ...
 dn> large talk, restriction but not exclusion on show of good faith I
 dn> think is safest.  </dn>

This is not just something on "good faith" but in terms of "official"
statements. And if a company really decided to lie on this one, it'd
do much more harm to their image than it would do good: They'd
immediately be barred from the GBN for two years (if I remember
correctly) and we would make sure that people do not forget.  So there
is no motivation to do it.

The reason why RMS and I included this one is that there is no proper
business model for short-lived areas like games. So we give them the
short-term gain and possibility to make money while having the
long-term perspective of more Free Software. This is not perfect
(hence the -) but right now we have no better solution handy.

 dn> (-) Distributing proprietary software gratis.

 dn> <dn> I am confused.  Does this mean its ok to distribute prop
 dn> software as long as I am not charging for it.  (as in not
 dn> violating above clause).  If so I am not sure this is good as it
 dn> clouds the definition of free(libre), because at least in English
 dn> we have no way of defining the difference in a word.  So large
 dn> companies uneducated in the GNU could get the wrong picture.
 dn> </dn>

First of all I think using the term "gratis" is pretty much
clear. That is why we chose it. Furthermore: this is something we
disapprove of (that's why it has a minus). But there is the problem
that Free solutions do not exist for all areas and companies will have
to solve their customers problems in order to stay alive. So we say:
we don't like it but as long as you don't earn money that way, we
won't refuse you entry into the GBN.

 dn> (-) Including, in a Free Software-based distribution (like
 dn> GNU/HURD or GNU/Linux) , some proprietary programs that can be
 dn> freely redistributed in binary form.

 dn> <dn> This sounds a bit iffy as well, I imagine its done to not
 dn> exlcude the GNU\Linux distro's, but I am wondering if it opens
 dn> doors that will haunt you later.  </dn>

To what extend? If you see an opening there that we missed, please
tell us.

 dn> <dn> I think public acknowledgement should be mandatory </dn>

Well. RMS thought that would be entirely unrealistic and I agreed.=20

 dn> <dn> I think we should be leading by example.  I think it is BAD
 dn> to say we can use patent's to block prop software but we feel
 dn> they shouldnt use them to block us, because we are part of a
 dn> noble cause </dn>

Software patents exist. They won't go away simply because we choose to
ignore them. So we need to find a way to deal with them until we are
able to get rid of them... this is how we think it could be done.

 dn> <dn> See above, I think anyone using patents aggressively should
 dn> be denied.  </dn>

Hm. hm. Thinking about this. You may have a point here.

 dn> The GNU Business Network is maintained by the Free Software
 dn> Foundation Europe http://www.fsfeurope.org/.=3D20

 dn> <dn> Is this a Europe only thing?  While maintained by fsfeurope
 dn> should original FSF be mentioned as well?  </dn>

The documents clearly state that it is a worldwide thing.

If you heard that IBM Germany did the actual work of developing
something instead of IBM California: would that really matter? I think
the important part is that IBM does it. Same thing applies here:

The FSF Europe is the acknowledged sister of the FSF. We will be
acting as ONE institution. But the GBN is an initative by the FSF
Europe team going back to an idea of mine. So it was pretty obvious to
have the FSF Europe do the maintenance and offer the resources instead
of the FSF U.S. - and I don't really see a problem in that.

Regards,
                Georg

=2D-=20
Georg C. F. Greve <greve@gnu.org>
the monthly GNU forum in English, German,=20
French, Spanish and Japanese. Check it out=20
at http://brave-gnu-world.org/

--=-=-=--
--==-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.5 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE6M/gnbvivwoZXSsoRAgbpAKC9MHjqofvJZBa07z9r1jpxcNHhIwCfUijV
UzZZ7i6Yls7WR5m28rkvCpU=
=CFeo
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
--==-=-=--