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 Free Software, > some companies also claim something is "organic" or "fair-trade" although it > is > not. In other sectors, labels on websites link to organisations with a list of recognized products and services to prevent abuse.
> 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. On the other hand, the GPL and the LGPL are copyright by FSF, aren't they? > 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. The consumer pays for product or service. It can be Free Software or not Free Software. > 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. Could giving companies the chance to use a recognized label that says the product or service complies with GPL or LGPL, linked back to FSF and FSFE's websites, be helpfull? > 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: This is going to cost serious resources. Best regards, -- André Ockers Fellow, Free Software Foundation Europe a...@fsfe.org GnuPG Key: F5FE3668 https://blogs.fsfe.org/ao https://quitter.no/ao Word lid van de Fellowship en bescherm uw vrijheid! (http://fellowship.fsfe.org/)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
