FSF, terminology, and marketing

[Brian Cameron]

Marketing Team:

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
"GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
bring positive attention towards the free software community.

A few people have recently complained to the board that the GNOME
community sometimes does not always follow these recommendations.  I
imagine that some of these issues are caused by people just not being
thoughtful about the terminology that they use, but I also do not
believe that the GNOME community has an official stance on what language
we should be using.  At any rate, we should probably be consistent with
the language we use in more official GNOME Foundation communications.
So, I think it is good to discuss and find out what the overall GNOME
community thinks about this before making any sort of decision or
encouraging people to use one term or another.

On one hand, since we are a GNU project and since one of the
long-standing objectives of the GNOME community has been to promote
free software, there is a good argument for following these
recommendations and making it a more official policy that we try to
use the terminology recommended by the FSF.

On the other hand, I know that some people in our community feel that
it makes more sense to use the terms "Linux" and "open source" since
they have more traction in the business world, and are more familiar.
We often have trouble explaining what "GNOME" is to people, and it
perhaps makes it harder when we use terms that are unfamiliar or that
do not have traction.  So, there may be situations or types of
communication where going against the FSF recommendations makes sense.
However, if we feel that we should go against the recommendations of the
FSF, we probably should have some solid reasoning for doing so.

Also, I think the GNOME Foundation needs to be sensitive to those
partners with which we have close working relationships.  For example,
we need to be sensitive to what opinions those on the advisory board
might have to say about the terminology we use.  So, I have suggested to
Stormy that we raise this topic at an upcoming advisory board meeting
and find out what they think about this.  Whether or not they care would
likely be an important input to consider in making any decision.

Perhaps it makes sense to use different terms when talking to different
audiences.   Perhaps we should make more of an effort to use the terms
recommended by the FSF when communicating with some audiences, and use
other terms in other situations.  If so, perhaps we need to think about
when it makes sense to use which terms and make this more clear so
people have some guidance about what terms to use and when.

So, I am interested to hear what the GNOME marketing community thinks
about this.  Since many of the documents where we use these terms are
in public-facing documents such as marketing materials, PR, press
releases, etc. I think whatever terms we use should be something that
the marketing team thinks about and has input on any decisions made.

Thoughts?

Brian
--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Shane Fagan-2]

Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say
GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect
the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics.

Regards
Shane Fagan

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:07 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:

> Marketing Team:
>
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
> to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
> I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
> bring positive attention towards the free software community.
>
> A few people have recently complained to the board that the GNOME
> community sometimes does not always follow these recommendations.  I
> imagine that some of these issues are caused by people just not being
> thoughtful about the terminology that they use, but I also do not
> believe that the GNOME community has an official stance on what language
> we should be using.  At any rate, we should probably be consistent with
> the language we use in more official GNOME Foundation communications.
> So, I think it is good to discuss and find out what the overall GNOME
> community thinks about this before making any sort of decision or
> encouraging people to use one term or another.
>
> On one hand, since we are a GNU project and since one of the
> long-standing objectives of the GNOME community has been to promote
> free software, there is a good argument for following these
> recommendations and making it a more official policy that we try to
> use the terminology recommended by the FSF.
>
> On the other hand, I know that some people in our community feel that
> it makes more sense to use the terms "Linux" and "open source" since
> they have more traction in the business world, and are more familiar.
> We often have trouble explaining what "GNOME" is to people, and it
> perhaps makes it harder when we use terms that are unfamiliar or that
> do not have traction.  So, there may be situations or types of
> communication where going against the FSF recommendations makes sense.
> However, if we feel that we should go against the recommendations of the
> FSF, we probably should have some solid reasoning for doing so.
>
> Also, I think the GNOME Foundation needs to be sensitive to those
> partners with which we have close working relationships.  For example,
> we need to be sensitive to what opinions those on the advisory board
> might have to say about the terminology we use.  So, I have suggested to
> Stormy that we raise this topic at an upcoming advisory board meeting
> and find out what they think about this.  Whether or not they care would
> likely be an important input to consider in making any decision.
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to use different terms when talking to different
> audiences.   Perhaps we should make more of an effort to use the terms
> recommended by the FSF when communicating with some audiences, and use
> other terms in other situations.  If so, perhaps we need to think about
> when it makes sense to use which terms and make this more clear so
> people have some guidance about what terms to use and when.
>
> So, I am interested to hear what the GNOME marketing community thinks
> about this.  Since many of the documents where we use these terms are
> in public-facing documents such as marketing materials, PR, press
> releases, etc. I think whatever terms we use should be something that
> the marketing team thinks about and has input on any decisions made.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Andre Klapper]

Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 17:07 -0500 schrieb Brian Cameron:
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
> to free software and licenses as "open source".

> Thoughts?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy

My very personal opinion: There's a reality out there, and there's the
fundamentalists of the FSF. I prefer reality.

andre
--
 mailto:ak-47@... | failed
 http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Brian Cameron]

Shane:

> Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say
> GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect
> the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics.

It may be politics, but within the context of the GNOME marketing-list,
there should be some sensitivity to politics.  The GNOME Foundation does
have relationships with various governments and does try to encourage
them to use free and open source solutions, for example.  So, our
messaging should be consistent, and I think we should not discount
something in this forum for being "just politics".

Having a good relationship with the FSF is important.  At the moment, we
are doing a joint Women's Outreach program with them.  The GNOME
Foundation also has certain benefits, like the fact that we are able
to use the Software Freedom Law Center due to our free software status.
By working with the FSF, and following their recommendations, we may
find that more doors open, and we may find more opportunities to do
interesting and positive things with them and other free software
organizations.  Aside from the fact that promoting free software with
the terminology we use may be just a "good thing" for any free software
community to do.  If we choose not to follow their recommendations we
may be like that uncle who always says inappropriate things and never
gets invited to certain parties.

However, as I said before, we do need to consider how the terminology
we use affects our other partners, such as our advisory board members.
Improving our relationship with the FSF at the expense of our
relationship with others, or with the public at large, might not be a
good idea.  However, I do not think we can make a decision without first
talking about it amongst ourselves and with our advisory board members.
So, I think it is a good idea to do both before making any sort of
decision.

Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Shane Fagan-2]

So then we just use "GNU/Linux" and "Free and Open Source". Its not too
hard to do.
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:41 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:

> Shane:
>
> > Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say
> > GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect
> > the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics.
>
> It may be politics, but within the context of the GNOME marketing-list,
> there should be some sensitivity to politics.  The GNOME Foundation does
> have relationships with various governments and does try to encourage
> them to use free and open source solutions, for example.  So, our
> messaging should be consistent, and I think we should not discount
> something in this forum for being "just politics".
>
> Having a good relationship with the FSF is important.  At the moment, we
> are doing a joint Women's Outreach program with them.  The GNOME
> Foundation also has certain benefits, like the fact that we are able
> to use the Software Freedom Law Center due to our free software status.
> By working with the FSF, and following their recommendations, we may
> find that more doors open, and we may find more opportunities to do
> interesting and positive things with them and other free software
> organizations.  Aside from the fact that promoting free software with
> the terminology we use may be just a "good thing" for any free software
> community to do.  If we choose not to follow their recommendations we
> may be like that uncle who always says inappropriate things and never
> gets invited to certain parties.
>
> However, as I said before, we do need to consider how the terminology
> we use affects our other partners, such as our advisory board members.
> Improving our relationship with the FSF at the expense of our
> relationship with others, or with the public at large, might not be a
> good idea.  However, I do not think we can make a decision without first
> talking about it amongst ourselves and with our advisory board members.
> So, I think it is a good idea to do both before making any sort of
> decision.
>
> Brian
>

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Baris Cicek]

Hi Brian;

There was a big discussion about GNU/Linux terminology usage in
documentation years ago. Here is the starting thread about that
discussion:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2006-July/msg00200.html

I didn't re-read whole discussion but I remember there wasn't any
terminology enforcement done by GNOME Doc Team about this.

I've also checked some marketing materials. GNOME 2.26 Release notes
does not have any mention of term "Linux", and in Quarterly Report only
places where Linux is used are either "Trademarks" or valid usage of
Linux as an operating system. And at homepage of gnome.org we already
use GNU/Linux.

In my honest opinion, as GNOME, our relationship with Linux is similar
to our relationship with BSD or Solaris kernels. If we won't call
GNU/Solaris, calling GNU/Linux everywhere wouldn't be a consistent
approach.

Regards,
Baris.

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:07 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:

> Marketing Team:
>
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
> to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
> I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
> bring positive attention towards the free software community.
>
> A few people have recently complained to the board that the GNOME
> community sometimes does not always follow these recommendations.  I
> imagine that some of these issues are caused by people just not being
> thoughtful about the terminology that they use, but I also do not
> believe that the GNOME community has an official stance on what language
> we should be using.  At any rate, we should probably be consistent with
> the language we use in more official GNOME Foundation communications.
> So, I think it is good to discuss and find out what the overall GNOME
> community thinks about this before making any sort of decision or
> encouraging people to use one term or another.
>
> On one hand, since we are a GNU project and since one of the
> long-standing objectives of the GNOME community has been to promote
> free software, there is a good argument for following these
> recommendations and making it a more official policy that we try to
> use the terminology recommended by the FSF.
>
> On the other hand, I know that some people in our community feel that
> it makes more sense to use the terms "Linux" and "open source" since
> they have more traction in the business world, and are more familiar.
> We often have trouble explaining what "GNOME" is to people, and it
> perhaps makes it harder when we use terms that are unfamiliar or that
> do not have traction.  So, there may be situations or types of
> communication where going against the FSF recommendations makes sense.
> However, if we feel that we should go against the recommendations of the
> FSF, we probably should have some solid reasoning for doing so.
>
> Also, I think the GNOME Foundation needs to be sensitive to those
> partners with which we have close working relationships.  For example,
> we need to be sensitive to what opinions those on the advisory board
> might have to say about the terminology we use.  So, I have suggested to
> Stormy that we raise this topic at an upcoming advisory board meeting
> and find out what they think about this.  Whether or not they care would
> likely be an important input to consider in making any decision.
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to use different terms when talking to different
> audiences.   Perhaps we should make more of an effort to use the terms
> recommended by the FSF when communicating with some audiences, and use
> other terms in other situations.  If so, perhaps we need to think about
> when it makes sense to use which terms and make this more clear so
> people have some guidance about what terms to use and when.
>
> So, I am interested to hear what the GNOME marketing community thinks
> about this.  Since many of the documents where we use these terms are
> in public-facing documents such as marketing materials, PR, press
> releases, etc. I think whatever terms we use should be something that
> the marketing team thinks about and has input on any decisions made.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Paul Cutler-3]

A couple different thoughts:

* The most important thing we can do as marketers is know our audience.  While I respect Brian's comment we should be sensitive to politics, it's really dependent on document we're writing and whom it is for.

* Most of our marketing is at end users - and for that reason, I prefer "Linux" as that is the common word used by journalists both in the open source press and the mainstream press.

* I don't know if I agree that having a good relationship with the FSF is that important.  The anecdotal feedback I have on their recent campaigns, including Windows 7 Sins and Bad Vista is that it does more harm than good.  While I have great respect for the work done in the past on multiple fronts, including the GNU utilities, the GPL licenses and more, GNOME needs to be relevant now and respectful of our current and potential future users.

* Brian, I was curious about an earlier statement you made:  "since we are a GNU project " - are we?  What does that mean?   Looking at the gnu.org website and fsf.org GNOME is not mentioned once.  Searching on gnu.org, the first search result that mentions GNOME is a 10 year old press release around GNOME 1.0.  What is our formal relationship with the FSF and GNU?

Those are my long answers.  My short answer - I agree with Andre, and I prefer reality.  I look forward to hearing the Advisory Board's recommendation as well.

Paul

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Brian Cameron <Brian.Cameron@...> wrote:

Shane:

Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say
GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect
the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics.

It may be politics, but within the context of the GNOME marketing-list,
there should be some sensitivity to politics.  The GNOME Foundation does
have relationships with various governments and does try to encourage
them to use free and open source solutions, for example.  So, our
messaging should be consistent, and I think we should not discount
something in this forum for being "just politics".

Having a good relationship with the FSF is important.  At the moment, we
are doing a joint Women's Outreach program with them.  The GNOME
Foundation also has certain benefits, like the fact that we are able
to use the Software Freedom Law Center due to our free software status.
By working with the FSF, and following their recommendations, we may
find that more doors open, and we may find more opportunities to do
interesting and positive things with them and other free software
organizations.  Aside from the fact that promoting free software with
the terminology we use may be just a "good thing" for any free software
community to do.  If we choose not to follow their recommendations we
may be like that uncle who always says inappropriate things and never
gets invited to certain parties.

However, as I said before, we do need to consider how the terminology
we use affects our other partners, such as our advisory board members.
Improving our relationship with the FSF at the expense of our
relationship with others, or with the public at large, might not be a
good idea.  However, I do not think we can make a decision without first
talking about it amongst ourselves and with our advisory board members.
So, I think it is a good idea to do both before making any sort of
decision.

Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Brian Cameron]

Paul:

> * The most important thing we can do as marketers is know our audience.  
> While I respect Brian's comment we should be sensitive to politics, it's
> really dependent on document we're writing and whom it is for.

Agreed.

> * Most of our marketing is at end users - and for that reason, I prefer
> "Linux" as that is the common word used by journalists both in the open
> source press and the mainstream press.

I can understand that position.  As I suggested before, there may be
certain audiences or situations where using different terminology makes
more sense.

For example, if we are doing a press release about something that we
are doing with the Free Software Foundation, then perhaps it would
probably be more appropriate to use the terminology they recommend, for
example.

> * I don't know if I agree that having a good relationship with the FSF
> is that important.  The anecdotal feedback I have on their recent
> campaigns, including Windows 7 Sins and Bad Vista is that it does more
> harm than good.  While I have great respect for the work done in the
> past on multiple fronts, including the GNU utilities, the GPL licenses
> and more, GNOME needs to be relevant now and respectful of our current
> and potential future users.

Still, there is no real value in creating friction where it is not
necessary.  So, even if there is value in using the term "Linux" in
some communications, it seems good to clarify if and when there are
any situations where following the FSF recommendations are recommended.

While we may choose to not use the term "GNU/Linux", perhaps we could
make an active effort to highlight GNU or the free software community in
other ways?

> * Brian, I was curious about an earlier statement you made:  "since we
> are a GNU project " - are we?  What does that mean?   Looking at the
> gnu.org <http://gnu.org> website and fsf.org <http://fsf.org> GNOME is
> not mentioned once.  Searching on gnu.org <http://gnu.org>, the first
> search result that mentions GNOME is a 10 year old press release around
> GNOME 1.0.  What is our formal relationship with the FSF and GNU?

The "G" in "GNOME" stands for "GNU".  So, the people who created GNOME
felt it was important to be under the GNU Umbrella of projects and that
our project would be a shining example of a free software project.  :)

    http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/
    http://www.gnome.org/about/

Quoting from the last link:

 > GNOME is...
 > Free
 >
 > GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to
 > giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their
 > desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU
 > project and Free Software at gnu.org.

In fact, I believe one of the reasons why GNOME replaced KDE as the most
popular software desktop on free/open operating systems is because of
its free licensing.  So, the current popularity that we enjoy is due, in
part, to our relationship with the free software community and the FSF.
So, perhaps we should honor that it some ways.

> Those are my long answers.  My short answer - I agree with Andre, and I
> prefer reality.  I look forward to hearing the Advisory Board's
> recommendation as well.

Yes, I think this is an issue that a lot of people have already made
strong opinions about, which probably makes it hard to think things
through very well.  So, I think we need to be a bit careful as we
consider this topic to not jump to any quick conclusions.

But, the fact that the lead of GNOME Marketing is not aware that GNOME
is a GNU project is probably a symptom of a larger problem - that we
do not do a very good job of promoting the free software aspects of our
overall ethic.  And regardless of what terminology we use for "Linux" or
"GNU/Linux", we probably should work to improve that.

Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Brian Cameron]

Baris:

> There was a big discussion about GNU/Linux terminology usage in
> documentation years ago. Here is the starting thread about that
> discussion:
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-doc-list/2006-July/msg00200.html
>
> I didn't re-read whole discussion but I remember there wasn't any
> terminology enforcement done by GNOME Doc Team about this.
>
> I've also checked some marketing materials. GNOME 2.26 Release notes
> does not have any mention of term "Linux", and in Quarterly Report only
> places where Linux is used are either "Trademarks" or valid usage of
> Linux as an operating system. And at homepage of gnome.org we already
> use GNU/Linux.
>
> In my honest opinion, as GNOME, our relationship with Linux is similar
> to our relationship with BSD or Solaris kernels. If we won't call
> GNU/Solaris, calling GNU/Linux everywhere wouldn't be a consistent
> approach.

As you say, perhaps if there is not a real need to refer to "Linux" in
our writing, then we should more actively avoid using a controversial
term.  I often notice that when it is used, it is often used to mean
"any distribution which uses GNOME", which is, as you highlight, an
incorrect usage anyway.

Brian
--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Paul Cutler-3]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Brian Cameron <Brian.Cameron@...> wrote:

Paul:

* The most important thing we can do as marketers is know our audience.  While I respect Brian's comment we should be sensitive to politics, it's really dependent on document we're writing and whom it is for.

Agreed.

* Most of our marketing is at end users - and for that reason, I prefer "Linux" as that is the common word used by journalists both in the open source press and the mainstream press.

I can understand that position.  As I suggested before, there may be
certain audiences or situations where using different terminology makes
more sense.

For example, if we are doing a press release about something that we
are doing with the Free Software Foundation, then perhaps it would
probably be more appropriate to use the terminology they recommend, for
example.

* I don't know if I agree that having a good relationship with the FSF is that important.  The anecdotal feedback I have on their recent campaigns, including Windows 7 Sins and Bad Vista is that it does more harm than good.  While I have great respect for the work done in the past on multiple fronts, including the GNU utilities, the GPL licenses and more, GNOME needs to be relevant now and respectful of our current and potential future users.

Still, there is no real value in creating friction where it is not
necessary.  So, even if there is value in using the term "Linux" in
some communications, it seems good to clarify if and when there are
any situations where following the FSF recommendations are recommended.

While we may choose to not use the term "GNU/Linux", perhaps we could
make an active effort to highlight GNU or the free software community in
other ways?

* Brian, I was curious about an earlier statement you made:  "since we are a GNU project " - are we?  What does that mean?   Looking at the gnu.org <http://gnu.org> website and fsf.org <http://fsf.org> GNOME is not mentioned once.  Searching on gnu.org <http://gnu.org>, the first search result that mentions GNOME is a 10 year old press release around GNOME 1.0.  What is our formal relationship with the FSF and GNU?

The "G" in "GNOME" stands for "GNU".  So, the people who created GNOME
felt it was important to be under the GNU Umbrella of projects and that
our project would be a shining example of a free software project.  :)

  http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/
  http://www.gnome.org/about/

My point is that we are being asked (or recommended) that we following their naming guidelines.  My point is how does the FSF respect GNOME - I am wiling to bet $100 a normal user couldn't find the http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/ link - you have to go their searchable database from a very small "Resources" link in the middle bottom of their page and manually put in GNOME.  Our desktop environment is arguably the 3rd most popular in the world after Windows and Mac OS X (thanks Ubuntu!) yet that's not mentioned anywhere on websites run by the FSF.  Unfortunately, irony in my original email doesn't communicate well.

 

Quoting from the last link:

> GNOME is...
> Free
>
> GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to
> giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their
> desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU
> project and Free Software at gnu.org.

In fact, I believe one of the reasons why GNOME replaced KDE as the most
popular software desktop on free/open operating systems is because of
its free licensing.  So, the current popularity that we enjoy is due, in
part, to our relationship with the free software community and the FSF.
So, perhaps we should honor that it some ways.

Yes, I remember the issues with Trolltech licenses 10 years ago.
 

Those are my long answers.  My short answer - I agree with Andre, and I prefer reality.  I look forward to hearing the Advisory Board's recommendation as well.

Yes, I think this is an issue that a lot of people have already made
strong opinions about, which probably makes it hard to think things
through very well.  So, I think we need to be a bit careful as we
consider this topic to not jump to any quick conclusions.

But, the fact that the lead of GNOME Marketing is not aware that GNOME
is a GNU project is probably a symptom of a larger problem - that we
do not do a very good job of promoting the free software aspects of our
overall ethic.  And regardless of what terminology we use for "Linux" or
"GNU/Linux", we probably should work to improve that.

I understand our history, and am even presenting on it next week.  Let me re-phrase the question:  What exactly is a "GNU Project"?  What implications does that tie GNOME to the FSF, who, in my opinion, despite everything they have done over the last 25 years, are earning themselves a negative reputation with poorly conceived campaigns like Windows 7 Sins?  As someone mentioned to me earlier today, we can have free licensing and free software without having to be a part of the FSF.

While I am jealous of their ability to market campaigns and the funding they have available, especially being a member of the GNOME marketing team, my recommendation would be to distance ourselves from the FSF rather than get closer.

I wish I could remember the blog post, article, or talk that was given that pointed out that GNOME may have been an acronym 10 years ago when founded, but it's not applicable today.  John Palmieri in his talk at GUADEC and recent GNOME Journal article argues the same thing that the "N" for "Network" doesn't apply either  I am more than aware of what the acronym is, thank you very much.  As I stated above, and I'll re-phrase, is there a perceived connotation of being part of the FSF by having the word "GNU" in GNOME?  

Without knowing what doors might be opened by tightening our relationship with the FSF, I believe that the risks do not outweigh the benefits of being associated with the FSF and I do not have a strong urge to use their naming conventions in GNOME materials.

Paul
 

Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Brian Cameron]

Paul:

> My point is that we are being asked (or recommended) that we following
> their naming guidelines.  My point is how does the FSF respect GNOME - I
> am wiling to bet $100 a normal user couldn't find the
> http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/ link - you have to go their
> searchable database from a very small "Resources" link in the middle
> bottom of their page and manually put in GNOME.  Our desktop environment
> is arguably the 3rd most popular in the world after Windows and Mac OS X
> (thanks Ubuntu!) yet that's not mentioned anywhere on websites run by
> the FSF.  Unfortunately, irony in my original email doesn't communicate
> well.

A fair point.  If this is a concern, though, have we made any efforts to
ask (or recommend) that the FSF do something to address this?  I would
be happy to bring this up with the FSF if we are interested in seeing
what can be done to make GNOME more visible on their website.

> I understand our history, and am even presenting on it next week.  Let
> me re-phrase the question:  What exactly is a "GNU Project"?  What
> implications does that tie GNOME to the FSF,

I am not sure I am the best person to answer that question, really.
Having said that, I would say that the FSF defines GNU licensing, which
is the licensing we primarily use in our software.  So, as you probably
know, there is some connection.

> who, in my opinion, despite
> everything they have done over the last 25 years, are earning themselves
> a negative reputation with poorly conceived campaigns like Windows 7
> Sins?  As someone mentioned to me earlier today, we can have free
> licensing and free software without having to be a part of the FSF.

Of course, we have the freedom to disagree with the FSF and to choose to
not follow certain recommendations, or to not support FSF projects
that we feel are damaging.  I was never trying to suggest otherwise.

In bringing up this topic, I am not trying to suggest that we do not
already do a lot to promote those values we share with the FSF.  For
example, we are responsible for distributing a tremendously successful
GNU licensed desktop which, as you highlight, is very successful - the
3rd most popular in the world.  This, in and of itself, is probably the
most significant thing that we already do to promote those values.
We also do things like promote Software Freedom Day, do things like the
Women's Outreach Program, and many other things.  Perhaps what we do
already is enough, and we need do no more.

> While I am jealous of their ability to market campaigns and the funding
> they have available, especially being a member of the GNOME marketing
> team, my recommendation would be to distance ourselves from the FSF
> rather than get closer.

I do not think this is a black and white issue.  While there may be
certain aspects of the FSF that we may choose to distance ourselves
from, there are also many shared values that do connect us.

> I wish I could remember the blog post, article, or talk that was given
> that pointed out that GNOME may have been an acronym 10 years ago when
> founded, but it's not applicable today.  John Palmieri in his talk at
> GUADEC and recent GNOME Journal article argues the same thing that the
> "N" for "Network" doesn't apply either  I am more than aware of what the
> acronym is, thank you very much.

I apologize, I did not mean for my jibe to be taken badly, much the same
way you did not mean for your irony to go unnoticed.  I think you are
doing a great job with GNOME marketing, and the improvements since you
have been involved have been simply tremendous.

> As I stated above, and I'll re-phrase,
> is there a perceived connotation of being part of the FSF by having the
> word "GNU" in GNOME?  

I would not say that GNOME is a part of the FSF - they are a separate
organization.  Though we do obviously have a relationship.

> Without knowing what doors might be opened by tightening our
> relationship with the FSF, I believe that the risks do not outweigh the
> benefits of being associated with the FSF and I do not have a strong
> urge to use their naming conventions in GNOME materials.

Personally, I would prefer to focus on those values that we share and
work towards improving relationship in those areas, rather than focus
on those areas where we disagree.

I was just trying to ask a question about what terminology the marketing
team recommends.  I have not talked with the FSF about what
opportunities might exist if we were to work towards improving our
relationship with them.  Without having such a discussion with them, it
seems hard to know.  Though if we think we should distance ourselves
from them, then we may not be in a constructive place to have any such
discussion.

But, just to clarify, are you saying that you recommend that the GNOME
community not use the term "GNU/Linux" in all contexts or just in
marketing materials?  Are you suggesting that using the term "GNU/Linux"
is damaging like the examples you give of the "Windows 7 Sins" and
should be avoided?  Do you think that we should avoid making efforts to
do things that might be seen as tightening our relationship with the FSF
in general?

Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Lefty (石鏡 )]

On 9/18/09 3:40 PM, "Andre Klapper" <ak-47@...> wrote:

> Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 17:07 -0500 schrieb Brian Cameron:
>> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
>> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
>> to free software and licenses as "open source".
>
>> Thoughts?
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy
>
> My very personal opinion: There's a reality out there, and there's the
> fundamentalists of the FSF. I prefer reality.

I'm not in favor of complicating terminology, especially when it makes life
more involved and in need of explanation. I don't want to be talking to a
reporter and find myself being asked: "I've heard of _Linux_... What's
_GNU/Linux_?"

I don't feel obligated to support this FSF's reasoning (with which I happen
to disagree) in this matter. Let's not (again) make the sort of mistake of
"marketing to ourselves" that I talked about at GCDS: this brouhaha over
names, which is really about who's getting credit, means less than nothing
to the world at large, the folks to whom we _should_ be marketing.

If the FSF can somehow persuade people at large to start calling it
"GNU/Linux" after having failed to do so for going on two decades, fine, but
I don't see that we need to stake that position out for our own. Similarly,
I'd be very unhappy if we were to make the term "open source" unwelcome.

I'm more than happy to keep good relations with the FSF, all other things
being equal, but if becoming a subscriber to terminology wars--something
which, again, means nothing to our "target audience"--then I wonder whether
"all other things are equal"...


--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Alex Hudson]

Hi Brian,

Very difficult topic to bring up without getting mired in politics :D

On 18/09/09 23:07, Brian Cameron wrote:

The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
"GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
bring positive attention towards the free software community.

I would make a few points, which I think all stand independently, and I think there are a variety of different choices to make:

1. in general, the most important thing from the point of view of the project is - in my opinion - to be consistent about usage.
2. I think it's important to say "free" as in "freedom", but also "open source" is a well-known term - rather than have that dichotomy, "free and open source" seems to be an inclusive alternative. There is the gratis mix-up still in there, but I'm not sure it matters, since either is true.
3. I'm not sure "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux" is a political issue alone any more. Android is a "Linux phone", but it's not GNU and GNOME apps will not run on it (as I understand it, anyway). Assuming people are likely to encounter mobile devices, this distinction is important, particularly with respect to GNOME Mobile.

For maximum clarity to the end-user, my vote (sic) would be "free and open source" and "GNU/Linux" respectively for the above reasons. I think some of the other points people have raised are somewhat apropos, I don't think this is an issue of being close to the FSF or not per se.

Cheers,

Alex.

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Claus Schwarm-2]

Hi,

I'm a little it late to the discussion, so I pick up some points made by
others. In general, I agree with Shane, Andre, Baris, Paul and Lefty.

First a note to the others: what terms our audience uses is irrelevant.
If there would be an unanimous vote or decision to promote the terms
"GNU" and "Free Software" alongside with GNOME, it would be a
marketeer's job to do that (if he/she got paid, that is).

For example, in Germany everybody calls "Mercedes-Benz" just "Mercedes".
That doesn't mean their marketing department cares.

Of course, we'll never get such an unanonimous vote or decision within
GNOME.

Thus, second, we may need to look at the issue from another point of
view. Suppose our self-set goal is market success. Promoting "GNU" and
"Free Software" would mean to exclude, for example, promoting "Open
Source". As a result, people who favor Open Source as a political
opinion may not look at GNOME as a potential solution.

Thus, if market success is the goal -- and I suggest that we act as if
it is --, we should

(1) write  "is 'Free Software and Open Source'" in all our materials and
encourage people to use this expression when talking about GNOME,

(2) write "Linux" in all our materials, for using the words "GNU/Linux"
has become a signal to people that its user subscribed to a certain
political opinion,

(3) drop "is part of the GNU project", for this signals support for a
certain political opinion, and

(4) write "GNOME started as a GNU project", for this signals
independence of said political opinion.


I'm not just talking about the possible reactions from our target
audiences (ie users and third-party developers) but also about
volunteers within GNOME: Some of them may be "Open Source" supporters.
Maybe, they changed their opinion during the years, and they never
really thought about the issue.

It's hard to say what part of the community favors Open Source but it's
probably not a small part. Maybe, it's time to acknowledge the fact, and
update our materials? I think, this is long over-due.

See also Miguel's reply to Stallman back in 2002 [1]:

  "Richard, you might be here to spread software freedom as many of us
here are.  

But Gnome is not an exclusive project where only those that care about
spreading software freedom are welcomed.  We welcome anyone who is
willing to release their code under a free software/open source license,
for whatever motives they might have.

[...]

You might be here to spread freedom, but Gnome, the Gnome Foundation,
and its members might have goals which are not aligned with yours.  

You are free to participate in the discussion, but you are mistaken if
you believe that you are speaking for Gnome or for all of us.  I know
you are not speaking for me and for none of the code I have written.

I have been working to give users what they want, and a lot of us wnat
to see free software succeed, and to achieve that goal, and to convince
more people to use our software, and hence to grow our developer base,
we will listen to them, and we will make adjustments to our code, to our
documentation, to our licenses and in the ways we interact with people."

Obviously, the opinions within GNOME's community are diverse. I think, our
materials should communicate this.

Of course, one could argue that a less exclusive approach may turn off
some supporters of the Free Software movement.

That's rather unlikely for they have a history of using every software
as a success story that fits their definition of "free"  -- even if it's
openly NOT supporting their political opinion. The Linux kernel project
is probably the most prominent example.

Thus, I'd say let's use the above expressions to signal more
independence from the GNU project.


Best regards,
Claus

[1]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00025.html


On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:07 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:

> Marketing Team:
>
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
> to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
> I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
> bring positive attention towards the free software community.
>
> A few people have recently complained to the board that the GNOME
> community sometimes does not always follow these recommendations.  I
> imagine that some of these issues are caused by people just not being
> thoughtful about the terminology that they use, but I also do not
> believe that the GNOME community has an official stance on what language
> we should be using.  At any rate, we should probably be consistent with
> the language we use in more official GNOME Foundation communications.
> So, I think it is good to discuss and find out what the overall GNOME
> community thinks about this before making any sort of decision or
> encouraging people to use one term or another.
>
> On one hand, since we are a GNU project and since one of the
> long-standing objectives of the GNOME community has been to promote
> free software, there is a good argument for following these
> recommendations and making it a more official policy that we try to
> use the terminology recommended by the FSF.
>
> On the other hand, I know that some people in our community feel that
> it makes more sense to use the terms "Linux" and "open source" since
> they have more traction in the business world, and are more familiar.
> We often have trouble explaining what "GNOME" is to people, and it
> perhaps makes it harder when we use terms that are unfamiliar or that
> do not have traction.  So, there may be situations or types of
> communication where going against the FSF recommendations makes sense.
> However, if we feel that we should go against the recommendations of the
> FSF, we probably should have some solid reasoning for doing so.
>
> Also, I think the GNOME Foundation needs to be sensitive to those
> partners with which we have close working relationships.  For example,
> we need to be sensitive to what opinions those on the advisory board
> might have to say about the terminology we use.  So, I have suggested to
> Stormy that we raise this topic at an upcoming advisory board meeting
> and find out what they think about this.  Whether or not they care would
> likely be an important input to consider in making any decision.
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to use different terms when talking to different
> audiences.   Perhaps we should make more of an effort to use the terms
> recommended by the FSF when communicating with some audiences, and use
> other terms in other situations.  If so, perhaps we need to think about
> when it makes sense to use which terms and make this more clear so
> people have some guidance about what terms to use and when.
>
> So, I am interested to hear what the GNOME marketing community thinks
> about this.  Since many of the documents where we use these terms are
> in public-facing documents such as marketing materials, PR, press
> releases, etc. I think whatever terms we use should be something that
> the marketing team thinks about and has input on any decisions made.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Paul Cutler-3]

Claus, thanks for the email, and your quotes from Miguel are helpful.

I think you bring up a good point as we are mostly, with the exception of Stormy and Rosanna, a volunteer staff.

Brian - do we have a list of terminology the FSF would prefer us to use other than "free software" and "GNU/Linux"?

Taking a step back and thinking about this, if we were creating a style guide for our volunteers, what would some of that terminology be?  I don't think this email thread needs to turn into style guide requirements, but it might be helpful to understand what the FSF is asking for.

Thanks.

Paul

(Oops, forgot to hit Reply All so only Claus got a copy the first time)

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Claus Schwarm <clschwarm@...> wrote:

Hi,

I'm a little it late to the discussion, so I pick up some points made by
others. In general, I agree with Shane, Andre, Baris, Paul and Lefty.

First a note to the others: what terms our audience uses is irrelevant.
If there would be an unanimous vote or decision to promote the terms
"GNU" and "Free Software" alongside with GNOME, it would be a
marketeer's job to do that (if he/she got paid, that is).

For example, in Germany everybody calls "Mercedes-Benz" just "Mercedes".
That doesn't mean their marketing department cares.

Of course, we'll never get such an unanonimous vote or decision within
GNOME.

Thus, second, we may need to look at the issue from another point of
view. Suppose our self-set goal is market success. Promoting "GNU" and
"Free Software" would mean to exclude, for example, promoting "Open
Source". As a result, people who favor Open Source as a political
opinion may not look at GNOME as a potential solution.

Thus, if market success is the goal -- and I suggest that we act as if
it is --, we should

(1) write  "is 'Free Software and Open Source'" in all our materials and
encourage people to use this expression when talking about GNOME,

(2) write "Linux" in all our materials, for using the words "GNU/Linux"
has become a signal to people that its user subscribed to a certain
political opinion,

(3) drop "is part of the GNU project", for this signals support for a
certain political opinion, and

(4) write "GNOME started as a GNU project", for this signals
independence of said political opinion.


I'm not just talking about the possible reactions from our target
audiences (ie users and third-party developers) but also about
volunteers within GNOME: Some of them may be "Open Source" supporters.
Maybe, they changed their opinion during the years, and they never
really thought about the issue.

It's hard to say what part of the community favors Open Source but it's
probably not a small part. Maybe, it's time to acknowledge the fact, and
update our materials? I think, this is long over-due.

See also Miguel's reply to Stallman back in 2002 [1]:

 "Richard, you might be here to spread software freedom as many of us
here are.

But Gnome is not an exclusive project where only those that care about
spreading software freedom are welcomed.  We welcome anyone who is
willing to release their code under a free software/open source license,
for whatever motives they might have.

[...]

You might be here to spread freedom, but Gnome, the Gnome Foundation,
and its members might have goals which are not aligned with yours.

You are free to participate in the discussion, but you are mistaken if
you believe that you are speaking for Gnome or for all of us.  I know
you are not speaking for me and for none of the code I have written.

I have been working to give users what they want, and a lot of us wnat
to see free software succeed, and to achieve that goal, and to convince
more people to use our software, and hence to grow our developer base,
we will listen to them, and we will make adjustments to our code, to our
documentation, to our licenses and in the ways we interact with people."

Obviously, the opinions within GNOME's community are diverse. I think, our
materials should communicate this.

Of course, one could argue that a less exclusive approach may turn off
some supporters of the Free Software movement.

That's rather unlikely for they have a history of using every software
as a success story that fits their definition of "free"  -- even if it's
openly NOT supporting their political opinion. The Linux kernel project
is probably the most prominent example.

Thus, I'd say let's use the above expressions to signal more
independence from the GNU project.


Best regards,
Claus

[1]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2002-May/msg00025.html

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:07 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:

> Marketing Team:
>
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
> to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
> I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
> bring positive attention towards the free software community.
>
> A few people have recently complained to the board that the GNOME
> community sometimes does not always follow these recommendations.  I
> imagine that some of these issues are caused by people just not being
> thoughtful about the terminology that they use, but I also do not
> believe that the GNOME community has an official stance on what language
> we should be using.  At any rate, we should probably be consistent with
> the language we use in more official GNOME Foundation communications.
> So, I think it is good to discuss and find out what the overall GNOME
> community thinks about this before making any sort of decision or
> encouraging people to use one term or another.
>
> On one hand, since we are a GNU project and since one of the
> long-standing objectives of the GNOME community has been to promote
> free software, there is a good argument for following these
> recommendations and making it a more official policy that we try to
> use the terminology recommended by the FSF.
>
> On the other hand, I know that some people in our community feel that
> it makes more sense to use the terms "Linux" and "open source" since
> they have more traction in the business world, and are more familiar.
> We often have trouble explaining what "GNOME" is to people, and it
> perhaps makes it harder when we use terms that are unfamiliar or that
> do not have traction.  So, there may be situations or types of
> communication where going against the FSF recommendations makes sense.
> However, if we feel that we should go against the recommendations of the
> FSF, we probably should have some solid reasoning for doing so.
>
> Also, I think the GNOME Foundation needs to be sensitive to those
> partners with which we have close working relationships.  For example,
> we need to be sensitive to what opinions those on the advisory board
> might have to say about the terminology we use.  So, I have suggested to
> Stormy that we raise this topic at an upcoming advisory board meeting
> and find out what they think about this.  Whether or not they care would
> likely be an important input to consider in making any decision.
>
> Perhaps it makes sense to use different terms when talking to different
> audiences.   Perhaps we should make more of an effort to use the terms
> recommended by the FSF when communicating with some audiences, and use
> other terms in other situations.  If so, perhaps we need to think about
> when it makes sense to use which terms and make this more clear so
> people have some guidance about what terms to use and when.
>
> So, I am interested to hear what the GNOME marketing community thinks
> about this.  Since many of the documents where we use these terms are
> in public-facing documents such as marketing materials, PR, press
> releases, etc. I think whatever terms we use should be something that
> the marketing team thinks about and has input on any decisions made.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Brian

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Brian Cameron]

Paul:

> Claus, thanks for the email, and your quotes from Miguel are helpful.
>
> I think you bring up a good point as we are mostly, with the exception
> of Stormy and Rosanna, a volunteer staff.

True.  Perhaps, the GNOME community can recommend terminology for
volunteers and/or help explain the reasoning behind the word choices so
we make sure that volunteers are educated and can decide for themselves.
However, it may be inappropriate to try and dictate which term any
volunteer should use.

A more thorny issue is what language should be used by the Foundation
board of directors and those employees of the Foundation.  Those
people represent the GNOME community and we really need help from the
community to ensure that we use the language that the community would
prefer that we use.  Since many of the documents that board members
and employees contribute to are marketing-related, it is also useful
to get the perspective of the marketing team.

While many of the responses have been rather ambivalent and leaning
against the term "GNU/Linux", I think we also need to consider whether
there are any contexts where using the FSF recommended terminology is
appropriate.  For example, if we do a press release about something
directly related to the FSF, then perhaps it does make sense to make
more of an effort to use the terminology they recommend.

Or do we feel so strongly against using their terminology that we think
that is a bad idea to use "GNU/Linux" in any context?

> Brian - do we have a list of terminology the FSF would prefer us to use
> other than "free software" and "GNU/Linux"?

That is a really good question.  As we all know, terms like "free
software" and "open software" are confusing since words like "free"
and "open" have many meanings.  The FSF does feel that language is very
important and that it is important to be careful to use the best words.

Here is an essay that Richard Stallman wrote to provide guidance on
this topic:

   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

I would think it would make good sense for anybody involved with free
software, and especially those on the marketing team, to be (at the
very least) aware and familiar with this information.  If the GNOME
community uses terminology that the FSF finds disagreeable, we should
probably not do so out of ignorance.

> Taking a step back and thinking about this, if we were creating a style
> guide for our volunteers, what would some of that terminology be?  I
> don't think this email thread needs to turn into style guide
> requirements, but it might be helpful to understand what the FSF is
> asking for.

I am not sure that we need a style guide, but it would perhaps be useful
to know if the GNOME community endorses these sorts of FSF
recommendations, and to what degree.  Then, at least, we know what we
agree and disagree about.

Brian
--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Stone Mirror (the Great and Terrible) [恐ろしき大鏡石]]

I'm looking askance at this. I find the arguments in favor of "GNU/
Linux" to be specious: if you examine the makeup of early Linux  
distros, following the FSF's reasoning would obligate one to call it  
"X/GNU/Linux", at least. Further, I'm troubled at the idea that we'd  
attempt to conform to FSF ideas on terms like "intellectual property"  
and "open source".

Few distros refer to themselves as "GNU/Linux", and the mainstream  
media never uses the term. It's unclear to me, with the numerous other  
things we could be usefully doing, why we'd choose to spend energy on  
a, frankly quixotic, "terminology crusade".

Shall we advise folks to avoid buying Harry Potter books as well?

__
Sent from my Steve-Phone

On Sep 19, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Brian Cameron <Brian.Cameron@...>  
wrote:

>
> Paul:
>
>> Claus, thanks for the email, and your quotes from Miguel are helpful.
>> I think you bring up a good point as we are mostly, with the  
>> exception of Stormy and Rosanna, a volunteer staff.
>
> True.  Perhaps, the GNOME community can recommend terminology for
> volunteers and/or help explain the reasoning behind the word choices  
> so
> we make sure that volunteers are educated and can decide for  
> themselves.
> However, it may be inappropriate to try and dictate which term any
> volunteer should use.
>
> A more thorny issue is what language should be used by the Foundation
> board of directors and those employees of the Foundation.  Those
> people represent the GNOME community and we really need help from the
> community to ensure that we use the language that the community would
> prefer that we use.  Since many of the documents that board members
> and employees contribute to are marketing-related, it is also useful
> to get the perspective of the marketing team.
>
> While many of the responses have been rather ambivalent and leaning
> against the term "GNU/Linux", I think we also need to consider whether
> there are any contexts where using the FSF recommended terminology is
> appropriate.  For example, if we do a press release about something
> directly related to the FSF, then perhaps it does make sense to make
> more of an effort to use the terminology they recommend.
>
> Or do we feel so strongly against using their terminology that we  
> think
> that is a bad idea to use "GNU/Linux" in any context?
>
>> Brian - do we have a list of terminology the FSF would prefer us to  
>> use other than "free software" and "GNU/Linux"?
>
> That is a really good question.  As we all know, terms like "free
> software" and "open software" are confusing since words like "free"
> and "open" have many meanings.  The FSF does feel that language is  
> very
> important and that it is important to be careful to use the best  
> words.
>
> Here is an essay that Richard Stallman wrote to provide guidance on
> this topic:
>
>  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
>
> I would think it would make good sense for anybody involved with free
> software, and especially those on the marketing team, to be (at the
> very least) aware and familiar with this information.  If the GNOME
> community uses terminology that the FSF finds disagreeable, we should
> probably not do so out of ignorance.
>
>> Taking a step back and thinking about this, if we were creating a  
>> style guide for our volunteers, what would some of that terminology  
>> be?  I don't think this email thread needs to turn into style guide  
>> requirements, but it might be helpful to understand what the FSF is  
>> asking for.
>
> I am not sure that we need a style guide, but it would perhaps be  
> useful
> to know if the GNOME community endorses these sorts of FSF
> recommendations, and to what degree.  Then, at least, we know what we
> agree and disagree about.
>
> Brian
> --
> marketing-list mailing list
> marketing-list@...
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Alberto Ruiz-4]

2009/9/18 Brian Cameron <Brian.Cameron@...>:
>
> Marketing Team:
>
> The Free Software Foundation (FSF) encourages the usage of the term
> "GNU/Linux" instead of the term "Linux", and also discourages referring
> to free software and licenses as "open source".  Their argument, which
> I think is valid, is that doing so helps to highlight free software and
> bring positive attention towards the free software community.

I do see value on being politically correct. However, to be
politically correct, if we wanted to be consistent with the FSF
argument that GNU deserves credit because it "complements" the Linux
kernel to create a usable system, for loads of people, Xorg and some
BSD utilities also complements the Linux kernel in this regard, should
we be doing something like Xorg/GNU/BSD/Linux then?

Credit is only useful among the developer type, and the developer type
is quite aware of the important role that the GNU project had and
still has in this regard, they just happen not to be the only ones to
have an important role, and saying just Linux is a good way to keep
things neutral and simple.

In any case, this is just my opinion and if the board decides
otherwise, I wouldn't be strongly against of using the recommended FSF
terminology as I see value on being politically correct, but keep in
mind that IMHO, this will only make them happy and will not solve any
other problem than keeping them happy.

--
Cheers,
Alberto Ruiz
--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Brian Cameron]

> I'm looking askance at this. I find the arguments in favor of
> "GNU/Linux" to be specious: if you examine the makeup of early Linux
> distros, following the FSF's reasoning would obligate one to call it
> "X/GNU/Linux", at least. Further, I'm troubled at the idea that we'd
> attempt to conform to FSF ideas on terms like "intellectual property"
> and "open source".

I do not think I, or anyone, have been suggesting that the GNOME
community will conform to any particular FSF idea on terminology.
Instead, I am interested to get clarity about to what degree of
conformity makes sense, and to understand to what degree we already
conform.  If there are areas where we choose to diverge, it is useful to
know what those areas are and understand why.

> Few distros refer to themselves as "GNU/Linux", and the mainstream media
> never uses the term. It's unclear to me, with the numerous other things
> we could be usefully doing, why we'd choose to spend energy on a,
> frankly quixotic, "terminology crusade".

Those reasons have already been raised as rationale for not following
the "GNU/Linux" terminology.  At this point in time, we are only
discussing the topic, and not engaging on any sort of "terminology
crusade".  What the marketing team thinks, in general, about if and when
FSF recommended terminology should be used is valuable input to be
considered in figuring out what terminology is best used and in what
contexts.

> Shall we advise folks to avoid buying Harry Potter books as well?

Probably not, but if there are people who want to talk about that, then
they probably will.

Brian
--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list

[Murray Cumming]

On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:07 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> A few people have recently complained to the board that the GNOME
> community sometimes does not always follow these recommendations.

And they always will complain and they will always be a significant
minority. And most of the rest of us will just continue to be annoyed by
it until they stop. The board has better things to do.

--
murrayc@...
www.murrayc.com
www.openismus.com

--
marketing-list mailing list
marketing-list@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list