Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing

[Baris Cicek <baris teamforce name tr>]

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