So to kind of clarify on my original idea a bit. (finally found the words)
Essentially, the point of libre software is that anyone can change it
to do what they want the program to do, and, if someone doesn't have
the know-how, they can ask someone else.
That's the heart of the idea. There should be an organization
not-unlike an artists' guild, where people can go to and commission
customizations to libre software.
The idea of a standards organization, was more meant as a certain
standard expected of all guild members. Projects live mostly off of
donations, but they can certified based on their members' respective
statuses in the guild and their portfolio of commissioned mods they've
accomplished.
Supposedly major companies could commission a major modified fork from
a project (like Blender or Gimp) and that there would be a
certification mark the commissioning company could bear indicating
that they supported as well as respected free software in this way.
(i.e. not trying to convince the foundation to sign an NDA, close or
obfuscate parts of the fork, or write any kind of exploitive or
otherwise disreputable software.)
And, if a company dedicates their own staffed developers to the
effort, basically the mark would also indicate that those developers
weren't disruptive and were respectful.
On 5/31/17, John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Neverminding the ridiculous length of that subject line..
>
> I just thought an interesting thought.
>
> First, a little context, (I know how rms feels about blockchains) I
> was investigating slock.it and thinking to myself "why don't they just
> make a hardware standard like eoma instead of closing their
> development and calling it open?" (Like, Pi-Top is [n]ever gonna
> release those stl files)
> (I realize that's a loaded 'just' cause it sounds easy, but is one of
> the most difficult possible)
>
> Then, it dawned on me: Lulzbot doesn't do that.. Wait, Lulzbot
> exclusively uses open software in their development.. Then *bam* like
> a boulder (nothing to do with Lulzbot): GPL-violations, improper GUI
> training, failing to extend using APIs/Addons, failing to
> bugsmash/'track-issues', failing to participate in mailing-lists and
> irc, failing to simply fork when development goals conflict, planned
> esoteric-ism and/or planned obsolescence, failure to secure clientèle
> data by using fully free systems (when relevant), failure to
> participate-in and be-aware-of public conversations about the
> underlining security of said systems (when relevant), failure to
> disclose supplychain information/identities (when relevant), failure
> at general transparency.
>
> All of these things traditionally go wrong with not only companies
> that use open source, but companies in-general.
>
> Then, it truly truly dawned on me, free software needs standards
> organizations as well.
>
