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