Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

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 . Feel free to share it so we g

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

tldr: A differentation between "fully proprietary" and "fully free" should not only focus on the licensing of parts of the software but also the degree of abidance with the four freedoms in the license. Dear Matthias, I am happy to read your post about balancing Free Software ideals and your prop

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

El 15 de noviembre de 2016 17:28:30 GMT+00:00, Matthias Kirschner 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 ><

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

On 2016-11-15 18:28, Matthias Kirschner wrote: * 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. The difference between this definition is and "EXCELLENT

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

* amunizp [2016-11-17 13:57:09 +]: > Sounds good. Where would 'open core' or 'open surface' fall? The idea is to have something more useful than such labels. E.g. a part of the offer could be proprietary because it is a connector to a proprietary software not important for the functionality,

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

Dear Daniel, thanks for your feedback. I have to think a bit more about it, but my gut feeling is that your suggestions will make it more complicated. * Daniel Guagnin [2016-11-17 14:41:46 +0100]: > Moreover it could be useful to differentiate between different kinds of > the limitations to r

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

Dear Giel, * Giel van Schijndel [2016-11-17 15:11:13 +0100]: > The difference between this definition is and "EXCELLENT" is not clear to > me. [...] Thanks for your feedback on the categories. We will try to make that clearer in the future. Regards, Matthias -- Matthias Kirschner - Presiden

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

On Tuesday 15. November 2016 18.28.30 Matthias Kirschner wrote: > 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 >

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

Dear Matthias and list, Op 15-11-16 om 18:28 schreef Matthias Kirschner: > 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 Fr

Re: Feedback appreciated for "There is no Free Software company - But!"

Dear André, we discussed labels, but also identified some problems with it. Especially that one entity has to do the work to check. I meanwhile heard there are labels, which work the other way: you sign it, and you remove companies if you find out they violate the principles. But I am not yet sure