Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: davidw@dedasys.com (David N. Welton)
Date: 30 Sep 2002 09:36:14 -0700

"Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com> writes:

> It's the exclusionary, boundary-driven definitions that bother me.
> We need a definition driven by a gravitational core, recognizing
> that the field gets attenuated the farther someone is from that
> core, but owning its influence all the way out to the stars.

> > [ ... ]

> Not at all.  Many companies don't depend on free software, and
> instead gain advantage from proprietary software.  My point is that
> those whose businesses *depend* on using and "performing" free
> software should be seen as free software businesses, and engaged
> with as such.

I, for one, would be fine with just dumping the idea of nailing down a
'definition'.  I am more interested in doing business with free
software than having a 'free software business', and I think your
comments regarding this broader field have been quite interesting, to
date.  I hope that on the list we can continue with both discussions,
though.  It's of interest to me to see if someone can make a go of it
as a 'pure' FSB, but it's also very important to discuss the
interaction, and border cases, of free software with the rest of the
world, and how it/we can profit from it.

Thanks,
-- 
David N. Welton
   Consulting: http://www.dedasys.com/
     Personal: http://www.dedasys.com/davidw/
Free Software: http://www.dedasys.com/freesoftware/
   Apache Tcl: http://tcl.apache.org/