On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 06:02:52PM -0600, Peter Harpending wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 09:50:13PM +0200, mray wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > > > So here is my candidate: > > > > > > "WE FUND FREE CULTURE." > > > > WE indicates that it is about people (many!), maybe including you > > FUND covers our financial angle > > FREE is the best compressed version of Free/Libre/Open > > CULTURE represents the scope of different content we support > > > > The slogan in the IRC channel's /topic is "Clearing the path to a > free/libre/open world" or some such. I thought that was the slogan. It's > a good slogan. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what a slogan is.
It's true: We *do* have a slogan, and arguments to change it must be heard. Here are some other thoughts of mine: In Aaron's response on the design list, he seems to imply that "open" is dead to us as a word to describe the kinds of works we want to support. I reject that claim. We don't *have* to use it, but I believe we *can* use it. Just because there is a thing called "open washing", and just because some close-minded people at an otherwise freedom-favoring organization have declared it anathema, doesn't mean it is now a meaningless word. If we want to give up every word that somebody makes a concerted effort to pervert, soon our language will consist of nothing but "buy now" and "Coke". I don't want the o-word to become like the n-word. On that note, (again referring to Aaron's other email), the fact that some dastardly folks have decided to pervert the term "free culture" to mean something that is absolutely nothing like its current meaning, doesn't mean we have to play along. Free culture, in my opinion, is the English phrase where "free" has the strongest connotation with "libre". Culture is already free-as-in-beer. I won't be bullied or brainwashed into thinking it is anything otherwise. Regarding Robert's suggestion: putting aside the question of discarding our existing slogan, I would suggest one tweak. "We" does not, in fact, suggest to me that it is "about peaple (many!), maybe including [me]". It instead suggests an exclusive "we". I think the following has a more inclusive feel: "Funding free culture, together". That's all I got. I'm interested to hear more thoughts.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
