El 15 de noviembre de 2016 17:28:30 GMT+00:00, Matthias Kirschner <m...@fsfe.org> escribió: >I just published a blog post about a topic we discussed at the FSFE's >last general assembly. Please let me know what you think about it. >Looking forward to your feedback. > >(The text is also online available under ><http://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/>. Feel free to >share it so we get a wide range of feedback.) > > ># There is no Free Software company - But! > >Since the start of the FSFE 15 years ago, the people involved were >certain that >companies are a crucial part to reach our goal of software freedom. For >many >years we have explained to companies – IT as well as non-IT – what >benefits >they have from Free Software. We encourage individuals and companies to >pay for >Free Software, as much as we encourage companies to use Free Software >in their >offers. > >While more people demanded Free Software, we also saw more companies >claiming >something is Free Software or Open Source Software although it is not. >This >behaviour – also called *"openwashing"* is nothing special for Free >Software, >some companies also claim something is "organic" or "fair-trade" >although it is >not. As the attempts to get a trademark for "Open Source" failed, it is >difficult to legally prevent companies from calling something "Free >Software" >or "Open Source Software" although it does neither comply with the Free >Software definition by the Free Software Foundation nor with the Open >Source >definition by the Open Source Initiative. > >When the FSFE was founded in 2001 there was already the idea to >encourage and >support companies making money with Free Software by starting a "GNU >business >network". One of the stumbling blocks for that was always the >definition of a >Free Software company. It cannot just be the usage of Free Software or >the >contribution to Free Software, but also needs to include what rights >they are >offering their customers. Another factor was whether the revenue stream >is tied >to proprietary licensing conditions. Would we also allow a small >revenue from >proprietary software, and how high is that that you can still consider >it a >Free Software company? > >It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and although we were >regularly >discussing it we did not have an idea how to approach the problems in >defining >a Free Software company. > >During our last meeting of the FSFE's General Assembly we came to the >conclusion that there was a flaw in our thinking and that it does not >make >sense to think about "Free Software companies". In hindsight it might >look >obvious, but for me the discussion was an eye opener, and I have the >feeling >that was a huge step for software freedom. > >As a side note: When we have the official general assembly of the FSFE >we >always use this opportunity to have more discussions during the days >before or >after. Sometimes they focus on internal topics, organisational changes, >but >often there is brainstorming abut the "hot topics of software freedom" >and >where the FSFE has to engage in the long run. At this year's meeting, >from 7 to >9 October, inspired by Georg Greve's and Nicola Diedrich's input, we >spent the >whole Saturday thinking about the long term challenges for software >freedom >with the focus on the private sector. > >We talked about the challenges of software freedom presented by >economies of >scale, networking effects, investment preference, and users making >convenience >and price based decisions over values – even when they declare >themselves >value conscious. > >One problem preventing a wider spread of software freedom identified >there was >that Free Software is being undermined by companies that abuse the >positive >brand recognition of Free Software / Open Source by "openwashing" >themselves. >Sometimes they offer products that do not even have a Free Software >version. >This penalises companies and groups that aim to work within the >principles of >Free Software and damages the recognition of Free Software / Open >Source in the >market. The consequence is reduced confidence in Free Software, fewer >developers working on it, fewer companies providing it, and less Free >Software >being written in favour of proprietary models. > >In the discussion, one question kept arising. Is an activity that is >good for >Free Software which is done by one small company as their sole activity >more >valuable than if the same thing were done as part of a larger >enterprise? We >all agree that a small company which is using and distributing >exclusively Free >Software, and has done so for many years, and no part of the software >they >wrote or included was ever non-free software is good. But what happens >if said >small, focused company got purchased by a larger entity? Does that >invalidate >the benefit of what is being done? > >We concluded that good action remains good action, and that the FSFE >should >encourage good actions. *So instead of focusing on the company as such >we >should focus on the activity itself*; we should think about ***"Free >Software >business activities", "Free Software business offers"***, and such. My >feeling >was that this was the moment the penny had dropped, while others and me >realised the flaw in our previous thinking. We need action oriented >approaches >and we need to look at activities individually. > >There was still the question where to draw the line between acceptable >or >useful activities and harmful ones. This is not a black and white >issue, and >when assessing the impact for software freedom there are different >levels. For >example if you evaluate a sharing platform, you might find out that the >core is >Free Software, but the sharing module itself is proprietary. This is a >bad >offer if you want to run a competing sharing platform using Free >Software. > >The counter example of an acceptable offer was a collaboration software >that >was useful and complete, but where connecting a proprietary client >would itself >require a proprietary connector. It was also discussed that sometimes >you need >to interface with proprietary systems through proprietary libraries >that do not >allow connecting with Free Software unless one were to first replace >the entire >API/library itself. > >Ultimately a consensus emerged around a focus on the four freedoms of >Free >Software in relation to the question of whether the software is >sufficiently >complete and useful to run a competing business. > >One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on >the >Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and >worst >practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according >to the >criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions >public. >That way we can help to build customer awareness about software >freedom. Here >is a first idea for a scale: > >* EXCELLENT: Free Software only and on all levels, no exceptions. > >* GOOD: Free Software as a complete, useful, and fully supportable >product. > Support available for Free Software version. > >* ACCEPTABLE: Proprietary interfaces to proprietary systems and >applications, >especially complex systems that require complex APIs/libraries/SDKs, as >long > as the above is still met. > >* BAD: Essential / important functionality only available proprietary, >critical > functionality missing from Free Software (one example for an essential > functionality was LDAP connector). > >* EVIL: Fully proprietary, but claiming to be Free Software / Open >Source > Software. > >**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on >this? >Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be >included in a >checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to >evaluate how >good some offers are on such a scale? > >To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a >whole >before and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think >about >Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a >better >name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are >not >deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give >them the >tools to check themselves. > >-- >Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe >Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290 >Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/donate) >Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html) >_______________________________________________ >Discussion mailing list >Discussion@lists.fsfe.org >https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Matthias, Sounds good. Where would 'open core' or 'open surface' fall? -- -- Andres (he/him/his) Ham United Group Richmond Makerlabs _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion