Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
I'm looking askance at this. I find the arguments in favor of GNU/ Linux to be specious: if you examine the makeup of early Linux distros, following the FSF's reasoning would obligate one to call it X/GNU/Linux, at least. Further, I'm troubled at the idea that we'd attempt to conform to FSF ideas on terms like intellectual property and open source. Few distros refer to themselves as GNU/Linux, and the mainstream media never uses the term. It's unclear to me, with the numerous other things we could be usefully doing, why we'd choose to spend energy on a, frankly quixotic, terminology crusade. Shall we advise folks to avoid buying Harry Potter books as well? __ Sent from my Steve-Phone On Sep 19, 2009, at 11:14 AM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.com wrote: Paul: Claus, thanks for the email, and your quotes from Miguel are helpful. I think you bring up a good point as we are mostly, with the exception of Stormy and Rosanna, a volunteer staff. True. Perhaps, the GNOME community can recommend terminology for volunteers and/or help explain the reasoning behind the word choices so we make sure that volunteers are educated and can decide for themselves. However, it may be inappropriate to try and dictate which term any volunteer should use. A more thorny issue is what language should be used by the Foundation board of directors and those employees of the Foundation. Those people represent the GNOME community and we really need help from the community to ensure that we use the language that the community would prefer that we use. Since many of the documents that board members and employees contribute to are marketing-related, it is also useful to get the perspective of the marketing team. While many of the responses have been rather ambivalent and leaning against the term GNU/Linux, I think we also need to consider whether there are any contexts where using the FSF recommended terminology is appropriate. For example, if we do a press release about something directly related to the FSF, then perhaps it does make sense to make more of an effort to use the terminology they recommend. Or do we feel so strongly against using their terminology that we think that is a bad idea to use GNU/Linux in any context? Brian - do we have a list of terminology the FSF would prefer us to use other than free software and GNU/Linux? That is a really good question. As we all know, terms like free software and open software are confusing since words like free and open have many meanings. The FSF does feel that language is very important and that it is important to be careful to use the best words. Here is an essay that Richard Stallman wrote to provide guidance on this topic: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html I would think it would make good sense for anybody involved with free software, and especially those on the marketing team, to be (at the very least) aware and familiar with this information. If the GNOME community uses terminology that the FSF finds disagreeable, we should probably not do so out of ignorance. Taking a step back and thinking about this, if we were creating a style guide for our volunteers, what would some of that terminology be? I don't think this email thread needs to turn into style guide requirements, but it might be helpful to understand what the FSF is asking for. I am not sure that we need a style guide, but it would perhaps be useful to know if the GNOME community endorses these sorts of FSF recommendations, and to what degree. Then, at least, we know what we agree and disagree about. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
I'm looking askance at this. I find the arguments in favor of GNU/Linux to be specious: if you examine the makeup of early Linux distros, following the FSF's reasoning would obligate one to call it X/GNU/Linux, at least. Further, I'm troubled at the idea that we'd attempt to conform to FSF ideas on terms like intellectual property and open source. I do not think I, or anyone, have been suggesting that the GNOME community will conform to any particular FSF idea on terminology. Instead, I am interested to get clarity about to what degree of conformity makes sense, and to understand to what degree we already conform. If there are areas where we choose to diverge, it is useful to know what those areas are and understand why. Few distros refer to themselves as GNU/Linux, and the mainstream media never uses the term. It's unclear to me, with the numerous other things we could be usefully doing, why we'd choose to spend energy on a, frankly quixotic, terminology crusade. Those reasons have already been raised as rationale for not following the GNU/Linux terminology. At this point in time, we are only discussing the topic, and not engaging on any sort of terminology crusade. What the marketing team thinks, in general, about if and when FSF recommended terminology should be used is valuable input to be considered in figuring out what terminology is best used and in what contexts. Shall we advise folks to avoid buying Harry Potter books as well? Probably not, but if there are people who want to talk about that, then they probably will. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
2009/9/18 Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.com: 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. I do see value on being politically correct. However, to be politically correct, if we wanted to be consistent with the FSF argument that GNU deserves credit because it complements the Linux kernel to create a usable system, for loads of people, Xorg and some BSD utilities also complements the Linux kernel in this regard, should we be doing something like Xorg/GNU/BSD/Linux then? Credit is only useful among the developer type, and the developer type is quite aware of the important role that the GNU project had and still has in this regard, they just happen not to be the only ones to have an important role, and saying just Linux is a good way to keep things neutral and simple. In any case, this is just my opinion and if the board decides otherwise, I wouldn't be strongly against of using the recommended FSF terminology as I see value on being politically correct, but keep in mind that IMHO, this will only make them happy and will not solve any other problem than keeping them happy. -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
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
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Claus, thanks for the email, and your quotes from Miguel are helpful. I think you bring up a good point as we are mostly, with the exception of Stormy and Rosanna, a volunteer staff. Brian - do we have a list of terminology the FSF would prefer us to use other than free software and GNU/Linux? Taking a step back and thinking about this, if we were creating a style guide for our volunteers, what would some of that terminology be? I don't think this email thread needs to turn into style guide requirements, but it might be helpful to understand what the FSF is asking for. Thanks. Paul (Oops, forgot to hit Reply All so only Claus got a copy the first time) On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:39 AM, Claus Schwarm clschw...@googlemail.comwrote: 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
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Paul: Claus, thanks for the email, and your quotes from Miguel are helpful. I think you bring up a good point as we are mostly, with the exception of Stormy and Rosanna, a volunteer staff. True. Perhaps, the GNOME community can recommend terminology for volunteers and/or help explain the reasoning behind the word choices so we make sure that volunteers are educated and can decide for themselves. However, it may be inappropriate to try and dictate which term any volunteer should use. A more thorny issue is what language should be used by the Foundation board of directors and those employees of the Foundation. Those people represent the GNOME community and we really need help from the community to ensure that we use the language that the community would prefer that we use. Since many of the documents that board members and employees contribute to are marketing-related, it is also useful to get the perspective of the marketing team. While many of the responses have been rather ambivalent and leaning against the term GNU/Linux, I think we also need to consider whether there are any contexts where using the FSF recommended terminology is appropriate. For example, if we do a press release about something directly related to the FSF, then perhaps it does make sense to make more of an effort to use the terminology they recommend. Or do we feel so strongly against using their terminology that we think that is a bad idea to use GNU/Linux in any context? Brian - do we have a list of terminology the FSF would prefer us to use other than free software and GNU/Linux? That is a really good question. As we all know, terms like free software and open software are confusing since words like free and open have many meanings. The FSF does feel that language is very important and that it is important to be careful to use the best words. Here is an essay that Richard Stallman wrote to provide guidance on this topic: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html I would think it would make good sense for anybody involved with free software, and especially those on the marketing team, to be (at the very least) aware and familiar with this information. If the GNOME community uses terminology that the FSF finds disagreeable, we should probably not do so out of ignorance. Taking a step back and thinking about this, if we were creating a style guide for our volunteers, what would some of that terminology be? I don't think this email thread needs to turn into style guide requirements, but it might be helpful to understand what the FSF is asking for. I am not sure that we need a style guide, but it would perhaps be useful to know if the GNOME community endorses these sorts of FSF recommendations, and to what degree. Then, at least, we know what we agree and disagree about. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics. Regards Shane Fagan 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
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 17:07 -0500 schrieb Brian Cameron: 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. Thoughts? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy My very personal opinion: There's a reality out there, and there's the fundamentalists of the FSF. I prefer reality. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Shane: Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics. It may be politics, but within the context of the GNOME marketing-list, there should be some sensitivity to politics. The GNOME Foundation does have relationships with various governments and does try to encourage them to use free and open source solutions, for example. So, our messaging should be consistent, and I think we should not discount something in this forum for being just politics. Having a good relationship with the FSF is important. At the moment, we are doing a joint Women's Outreach program with them. The GNOME Foundation also has certain benefits, like the fact that we are able to use the Software Freedom Law Center due to our free software status. By working with the FSF, and following their recommendations, we may find that more doors open, and we may find more opportunities to do interesting and positive things with them and other free software organizations. Aside from the fact that promoting free software with the terminology we use may be just a good thing for any free software community to do. If we choose not to follow their recommendations we may be like that uncle who always says inappropriate things and never gets invited to certain parties. However, as I said before, we do need to consider how the terminology we use affects our other partners, such as our advisory board members. Improving our relationship with the FSF at the expense of our relationship with others, or with the public at large, might not be a good idea. However, I do not think we can make a decision without first talking about it amongst ourselves and with our advisory board members. So, I think it is a good idea to do both before making any sort of decision. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
So then we just use GNU/Linux and Free and Open Source. Its not too hard to do. On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 17:41 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: Shane: Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics. It may be politics, but within the context of the GNOME marketing-list, there should be some sensitivity to politics. The GNOME Foundation does have relationships with various governments and does try to encourage them to use free and open source solutions, for example. So, our messaging should be consistent, and I think we should not discount something in this forum for being just politics. Having a good relationship with the FSF is important. At the moment, we are doing a joint Women's Outreach program with them. The GNOME Foundation also has certain benefits, like the fact that we are able to use the Software Freedom Law Center due to our free software status. By working with the FSF, and following their recommendations, we may find that more doors open, and we may find more opportunities to do interesting and positive things with them and other free software organizations. Aside from the fact that promoting free software with the terminology we use may be just a good thing for any free software community to do. If we choose not to follow their recommendations we may be like that uncle who always says inappropriate things and never gets invited to certain parties. However, as I said before, we do need to consider how the terminology we use affects our other partners, such as our advisory board members. Improving our relationship with the FSF at the expense of our relationship with others, or with the public at large, might not be a good idea. However, I do not think we can make a decision without first talking about it amongst ourselves and with our advisory board members. So, I think it is a good idea to do both before making any sort of decision. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
A couple different thoughts: * The most important thing we can do as marketers is know our audience. While I respect Brian's comment we should be sensitive to politics, it's really dependent on document we're writing and whom it is for. * Most of our marketing is at end users - and for that reason, I prefer Linux as that is the common word used by journalists both in the open source press and the mainstream press. * I don't know if I agree that having a good relationship with the FSF is that important. The anecdotal feedback I have on their recent campaigns, including Windows 7 Sins and Bad Vista is that it does more harm than good. While I have great respect for the work done in the past on multiple fronts, including the GNU utilities, the GPL licenses and more, GNOME needs to be relevant now and respectful of our current and potential future users. * Brian, I was curious about an earlier statement you made: since we are a GNU project - are we? What does that mean? Looking at the gnu.orgwebsite and fsf.org GNOME is not mentioned once. Searching on gnu.org, the first search result that mentions GNOME is a 10 year old press release around GNOME 1.0. What is our formal relationship with the FSF and GNU? Those are my long answers. My short answer - I agree with Andre, and I prefer reality. I look forward to hearing the Advisory Board's recommendation as well. Paul On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.comwrote: Shane: Well I dont think many people outside of FSF care. Its harder to say GNU/Linux and more people simply call it just linux. We should respect the FSF but its not a big deal in my opinion. Its just politics. It may be politics, but within the context of the GNOME marketing-list, there should be some sensitivity to politics. The GNOME Foundation does have relationships with various governments and does try to encourage them to use free and open source solutions, for example. So, our messaging should be consistent, and I think we should not discount something in this forum for being just politics. Having a good relationship with the FSF is important. At the moment, we are doing a joint Women's Outreach program with them. The GNOME Foundation also has certain benefits, like the fact that we are able to use the Software Freedom Law Center due to our free software status. By working with the FSF, and following their recommendations, we may find that more doors open, and we may find more opportunities to do interesting and positive things with them and other free software organizations. Aside from the fact that promoting free software with the terminology we use may be just a good thing for any free software community to do. If we choose not to follow their recommendations we may be like that uncle who always says inappropriate things and never gets invited to certain parties. However, as I said before, we do need to consider how the terminology we use affects our other partners, such as our advisory board members. Improving our relationship with the FSF at the expense of our relationship with others, or with the public at large, might not be a good idea. However, I do not think we can make a decision without first talking about it amongst ourselves and with our advisory board members. So, I think it is a good idea to do both before making any sort of decision. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
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 -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Paul: * The most important thing we can do as marketers is know our audience. While I respect Brian's comment we should be sensitive to politics, it's really dependent on document we're writing and whom it is for. Agreed. * Most of our marketing is at end users - and for that reason, I prefer Linux as that is the common word used by journalists both in the open source press and the mainstream press. I can understand that position. As I suggested before, there may be certain audiences or situations where using different terminology makes more sense. For example, if we are doing a press release about something that we are doing with the Free Software Foundation, then perhaps it would probably be more appropriate to use the terminology they recommend, for example. * I don't know if I agree that having a good relationship with the FSF is that important. The anecdotal feedback I have on their recent campaigns, including Windows 7 Sins and Bad Vista is that it does more harm than good. While I have great respect for the work done in the past on multiple fronts, including the GNU utilities, the GPL licenses and more, GNOME needs to be relevant now and respectful of our current and potential future users. Still, there is no real value in creating friction where it is not necessary. So, even if there is value in using the term Linux in some communications, it seems good to clarify if and when there are any situations where following the FSF recommendations are recommended. While we may choose to not use the term GNU/Linux, perhaps we could make an active effort to highlight GNU or the free software community in other ways? * Brian, I was curious about an earlier statement you made: since we are a GNU project - are we? What does that mean? Looking at the gnu.org http://gnu.org website and fsf.org http://fsf.org GNOME is not mentioned once. Searching on gnu.org http://gnu.org, the first search result that mentions GNOME is a 10 year old press release around GNOME 1.0. What is our formal relationship with the FSF and GNU? The G in GNOME stands for GNU. So, the people who created GNOME felt it was important to be under the GNU Umbrella of projects and that our project would be a shining example of a free software project. :) http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/ http://www.gnome.org/about/ Quoting from the last link: GNOME is... Free GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org. In fact, I believe one of the reasons why GNOME replaced KDE as the most popular software desktop on free/open operating systems is because of its free licensing. So, the current popularity that we enjoy is due, in part, to our relationship with the free software community and the FSF. So, perhaps we should honor that it some ways. Those are my long answers. My short answer - I agree with Andre, and I prefer reality. I look forward to hearing the Advisory Board's recommendation as well. Yes, I think this is an issue that a lot of people have already made strong opinions about, which probably makes it hard to think things through very well. So, I think we need to be a bit careful as we consider this topic to not jump to any quick conclusions. But, the fact that the lead of GNOME Marketing is not aware that GNOME is a GNU project is probably a symptom of a larger problem - that we do not do a very good job of promoting the free software aspects of our overall ethic. And regardless of what terminology we use for Linux or GNU/Linux, we probably should work to improve that. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Baris: 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. As you say, perhaps if there is not a real need to refer to Linux in our writing, then we should more actively avoid using a controversial term. I often notice that when it is used, it is often used to mean any distribution which uses GNOME, which is, as you highlight, an incorrect usage anyway. Brian -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Brian Cameron brian.came...@sun.comwrote: Paul: * The most important thing we can do as marketers is know our audience. While I respect Brian's comment we should be sensitive to politics, it's really dependent on document we're writing and whom it is for. Agreed. * Most of our marketing is at end users - and for that reason, I prefer Linux as that is the common word used by journalists both in the open source press and the mainstream press. I can understand that position. As I suggested before, there may be certain audiences or situations where using different terminology makes more sense. For example, if we are doing a press release about something that we are doing with the Free Software Foundation, then perhaps it would probably be more appropriate to use the terminology they recommend, for example. * I don't know if I agree that having a good relationship with the FSF is that important. The anecdotal feedback I have on their recent campaigns, including Windows 7 Sins and Bad Vista is that it does more harm than good. While I have great respect for the work done in the past on multiple fronts, including the GNU utilities, the GPL licenses and more, GNOME needs to be relevant now and respectful of our current and potential future users. Still, there is no real value in creating friction where it is not necessary. So, even if there is value in using the term Linux in some communications, it seems good to clarify if and when there are any situations where following the FSF recommendations are recommended. While we may choose to not use the term GNU/Linux, perhaps we could make an active effort to highlight GNU or the free software community in other ways? * Brian, I was curious about an earlier statement you made: since we are a GNU project - are we? What does that mean? Looking at the gnu.org http://gnu.org website and fsf.org http://fsf.org GNOME is not mentioned once. Searching on gnu.org http://gnu.org, the first search result that mentions GNOME is a 10 year old press release around GNOME 1.0. What is our formal relationship with the FSF and GNU? The G in GNOME stands for GNU. So, the people who created GNOME felt it was important to be under the GNU Umbrella of projects and that our project would be a shining example of a free software project. :) http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/ http://www.gnome.org/about/ My point is that we are being asked (or recommended) that we following their naming guidelines. My point is how does the FSF respect GNOME - I am wiling to bet $100 a normal user couldn't find the http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/ link - you have to go their searchable database from a very small Resources link in the middle bottom of their page and manually put in GNOME. Our desktop environment is arguably the 3rd most popular in the world after Windows and Mac OS X (thanks Ubuntu!) yet that's not mentioned anywhere on websites run by the FSF. Unfortunately, irony in my original email doesn't communicate well. Quoting from the last link: GNOME is... Free GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project, dedicated to giving users and developers the ultimate level of control over their desktops, their software, and their data. Find out more about the GNU project and Free Software at gnu.org. In fact, I believe one of the reasons why GNOME replaced KDE as the most popular software desktop on free/open operating systems is because of its free licensing. So, the current popularity that we enjoy is due, in part, to our relationship with the free software community and the FSF. So, perhaps we should honor that it some ways. Yes, I remember the issues with Trolltech licenses 10 years ago. Those are my long answers. My short answer - I agree with Andre, and I prefer reality. I look forward to hearing the Advisory Board's recommendation as well. Yes, I think this is an issue that a lot of people have already made strong opinions about, which probably makes it hard to think things through very well. So, I think we need to be a bit careful as we consider this topic to not jump to any quick conclusions. But, the fact that the lead of GNOME Marketing is not aware that GNOME is a GNU project is probably a symptom of a larger problem - that we do not do a very good job of promoting the free software aspects of our overall ethic. And regardless of what terminology we use for Linux or GNU/Linux, we probably should work to improve that. I understand our history, and am even presenting on it next week. Let me re-phrase the question: What exactly is a GNU Project? What implications does that tie GNOME to the FSF, who, in my opinion, despite everything they have done over the last 25 years, are earning themselves a negative reputation with poorly conceived campaigns like Windows 7 Sins? As someone mentioned to me earlier today, we
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
Paul: My point is that we are being asked (or recommended) that we following their naming guidelines. My point is how does the FSF respect GNOME - I am wiling to bet $100 a normal user couldn't find the http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnome/ link - you have to go their searchable database from a very small Resources link in the middle bottom of their page and manually put in GNOME. Our desktop environment is arguably the 3rd most popular in the world after Windows and Mac OS X (thanks Ubuntu!) yet that's not mentioned anywhere on websites run by the FSF. Unfortunately, irony in my original email doesn't communicate well. A fair point. If this is a concern, though, have we made any efforts to ask (or recommend) that the FSF do something to address this? I would be happy to bring this up with the FSF if we are interested in seeing what can be done to make GNOME more visible on their website. I understand our history, and am even presenting on it next week. Let me re-phrase the question: What exactly is a GNU Project? What implications does that tie GNOME to the FSF, I am not sure I am the best person to answer that question, really. Having said that, I would say that the FSF defines GNU licensing, which is the licensing we primarily use in our software. So, as you probably know, there is some connection. who, in my opinion, despite everything they have done over the last 25 years, are earning themselves a negative reputation with poorly conceived campaigns like Windows 7 Sins? As someone mentioned to me earlier today, we can have free licensing and free software without having to be a part of the FSF. Of course, we have the freedom to disagree with the FSF and to choose to not follow certain recommendations, or to not support FSF projects that we feel are damaging. I was never trying to suggest otherwise. In bringing up this topic, I am not trying to suggest that we do not already do a lot to promote those values we share with the FSF. For example, we are responsible for distributing a tremendously successful GNU licensed desktop which, as you highlight, is very successful - the 3rd most popular in the world. This, in and of itself, is probably the most significant thing that we already do to promote those values. We also do things like promote Software Freedom Day, do things like the Women's Outreach Program, and many other things. Perhaps what we do already is enough, and we need do no more. While I am jealous of their ability to market campaigns and the funding they have available, especially being a member of the GNOME marketing team, my recommendation would be to distance ourselves from the FSF rather than get closer. I do not think this is a black and white issue. While there may be certain aspects of the FSF that we may choose to distance ourselves from, there are also many shared values that do connect us. I wish I could remember the blog post, article, or talk that was given that pointed out that GNOME may have been an acronym 10 years ago when founded, but it's not applicable today. John Palmieri in his talk at GUADEC and recent GNOME Journal article argues the same thing that the N for Network doesn't apply either I am more than aware of what the acronym is, thank you very much. I apologize, I did not mean for my jibe to be taken badly, much the same way you did not mean for your irony to go unnoticed. I think you are doing a great job with GNOME marketing, and the improvements since you have been involved have been simply tremendous. As I stated above, and I'll re-phrase, is there a perceived connotation of being part of the FSF by having the word GNU in GNOME? I would not say that GNOME is a part of the FSF - they are a separate organization. Though we do obviously have a relationship. Without knowing what doors might be opened by tightening our relationship with the FSF, I believe that the risks do not outweigh the benefits of being associated with the FSF and I do not have a strong urge to use their naming conventions in GNOME materials. Personally, I would prefer to focus on those values that we share and work towards improving relationship in those areas, rather than focus on those areas where we disagree. I was just trying to ask a question about what terminology the marketing team recommends. I have not talked with the FSF about what opportunities might exist if we were to work towards improving our relationship with them. Without having such a discussion with them, it seems hard to know. Though if we think we should distance ourselves from them, then we may not be in a constructive place to have any such discussion. But, just to clarify, are you saying that you recommend that the GNOME community not use the term GNU/Linux in all contexts or just in marketing materials? Are you suggesting that using the term GNU/Linux is damaging like the examples you give of the Windows 7 Sins and should be avoided? Do
Re: FSF, terminology, and marketing
On 9/18/09 3:40 PM, Andre Klapper ak...@gmx.net wrote: Am Freitag, den 18.09.2009, 17:07 -0500 schrieb Brian Cameron: 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. Thoughts? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy My very personal opinion: There's a reality out there, and there's the fundamentalists of the FSF. I prefer reality. I'm not in favor of complicating terminology, especially when it makes life more involved and in need of explanation. I don't want to be talking to a reporter and find myself being asked: I've heard of _Linux_... What's _GNU/Linux_? I don't feel obligated to support this FSF's reasoning (with which I happen to disagree) in this matter. Let's not (again) make the sort of mistake of marketing to ourselves that I talked about at GCDS: this brouhaha over names, which is really about who's getting credit, means less than nothing to the world at large, the folks to whom we _should_ be marketing. If the FSF can somehow persuade people at large to start calling it GNU/Linux after having failed to do so for going on two decades, fine, but I don't see that we need to stake that position out for our own. Similarly, I'd be very unhappy if we were to make the term open source unwelcome. I'm more than happy to keep good relations with the FSF, all other things being equal, but if becoming a subscriber to terminology wars--something which, again, means nothing to our target audience--then I wonder whether all other things are equal... -- marketing-list mailing list marketing-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing-list
