On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 09:22:36PM -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > The discussion on what Debian is (Debian Linux, Debian GNU/Linux, > Debian OS, etc) comes back from time to time, but imho it is > irrelevant here
Note that recently the -www team has started uniforming things on that front, at least for what concerns our web presence. Given that "Debian GNU/Linux" is not necessarily correct anymore (we have several kernels…, the choice, AFAIU, is to use solely "Debian" when details don't matter, and to list flavors (Debian GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU/Hurd) when they do. Which totally makes sense. > since those all refer to the product not the "institution" we should > associate ourselves with. www.debian.org refers to the "Debian > project" while talking about Debian as an institution, and seems to be > more appropriate. Or ... ? I think that to refer to Debian as an institution, we should consistently use "Debian Project". We do that in legal-ish contexts ("signed/represented by foo, on behalf of the Debian Project"). I think we --- actually, you :-) --- should do the same for scientific publications. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o . Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature