On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, [UTF-8] Marc Paré wrote: > Le 2010-09-23 17:58, Michael Scherer a écrit : > Le jeudi 23 septembre 2010 à 16:17 -0400, Marc Paré a écrit : >> I think in the grand scheme of things, we should all acknowledge that >> should the name "Mageia" not work, that a name change would be a >> possibility, just as a logo change is still a possibility. We have seen >> this from many OSS firms who went through this process. > > How do you assess that it is the name that do not work and that's not > anything else ? > >> We should be careful in making the distro too "cottagey" or "home grown" >> in looks and flavour. I would suggest that the long term vision for the >> distro also include a commercial aspect. There should be a community >> driven distro and a commercial distro (read server). > > I fear that this scheme does look like too much the one that caused > problem in the past within Mandriva community, with contradictions > between the community nature and the more commercial version. > > How would you ensure that the community version will not be seen as a > cheap version of the commercial one ? How would you prevent this idea > from destroying again the community like it did by the past ? > > If theses questions are not solved, I think all attempts to redo the > mistakes of the past are bound to recreate the failures of the past. > And I think that none of us think that's a desirable outcome. > > All people who I asked the question said that the only solution is to > have 2 different names and brandings. > Redhat do it, and it work fine from them. > Novell do it, and it work fine. > Canonical do it ( to a lesser extend , since there was > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntuone-servers/+bug/375345 ), and it work > fine. > > Even debian based distro used a different name ( progeny, etc ). > > We didn't for Mandriva, and so started the confusion between the > company, the distribution and the community. And so people didn't > contribute because it was a business, and the idea that "updates were > not free" stick around for a long time because it was hard to explain to > people the different concept > > So if there is a business or commercial version, I think this would > requires a different name and branding. Using the association name for > that would not be right, in my opinion. > > > Good points. > > However, we are lucky in that are just at the start of organizing the > community and it gives us the luxury of trying to plan a rational growth > path for the distro. > > Mageia is starting off from the community end of things. We should then > be looking at models where communities have grown from that end then. A > good example that I can think of is the Moodle application where it > started out as a community driven project and its commercial end is now > doing quite well. The planning for the commercial end came a little > after the Moodle community became popular and the commercial end > followed. Their logo and name are quite known now in educational > circles, both on the community OSS side and the corporate side. This > assures the community a little more financial independence with > support coming from the corporate side. > > It may be to our benefit to see if some similar growth models could be > applied to Mageia.
I 100% agree with Michael, Mageia the foundation and the distro should NOT have any commercial involvement, that's not how it was intended as far as I understand the objectives on the mageia.or home page and that's definitely not what i want to be involved in. Of course anyone (including community members) is free to create a separate for profit distro under a different name that is based on Mageia, but the name Magei should NEVER be associated with a commercial distro. Debian should be our only example to follow in this respect. _______________________________________________ Mageia-dev mailing list Mageia-dev@mageia.org https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev
