Subject: Re: Definition of an FSB
From: Rich Bodo <rsb@ostel.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 02:01:34 -0800 (PST)


...
> I'm not sure I agree with the implied sequencing of the wording below the
> categories.  I'd think that "strategic" was more committed than "revenue" in
> the Reliance category, while Espouses/Disregards/Hostile is clearly a
> declining scale.  And I think that part of/cooperates are hard to
> distinguish.

Yeah.  All of the characteristics are hard to scale and hard to
measure in practice.  One could make the case that almost any tech company
relies on OSS at some level.

But this is a matter of wording. The concept of a matrix is
> clearly very useful, at least to my point, that f/oss advocates would
> benefit from identifying the companies that depend on f/oss and getting them
> on board more formally as supporters, as well as using them as models for
> understanding business options.

It seemed like the easiest way to introduce some helpful adjectival nouns into
the conversation, and it seemed like what you were getting at.

The most common misunderstanding I have read on this list occurs when
one person makes a general statement about "FSB's" that applies only
to a small subset of FSB's.  Then a half dozen people (like me) chime
in with the exceptions.  I can see how this type of misunderstandingg
would be fatal to many negotiations.  If we keep nibbling at the
definitions, we should be able to avoid them.

-Rich

Rich Bodo | rsb@ostel.com | 650-964-4678