Re: [Fsuk-manchester] Free Software as a brand

[Michael Dorrington]

Lucy wrote:
> 2009/6/14 Michael Dorrington <address@hidden>:
>> This is an interesting discussion about Open Source but you have to
>> understand two things:
>>
>> 1) Open Source is not a synonym for Free Software, see
>> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>.
>>
>> 2) This is Manchester Free Software not Manchester Open Source, its not
>> even Manchester FOSS.
> 
> I suggest you read the article!

I did read the article!

> Due to its popularity 'open source' is now coming up against the
> problem that free software advocates said it would - a dilution of
> meaning and an ignorance of freedom.

That's what I said and gave an example, plingput.

> This infighting of free software
> verses open source is more damaging than productive. Personally, I
> think that standing up for open source where the term is being used
> incorrectly, is better than bitching about it being used at all.

Its certainly awkward but if you want to keep your ideals then you don't
want them to watered down or misrepresented. 'Open Source' is not the
same as 'Free Software', its that simple. But I agree that if people are
going to use the term 'Open Source' to describe something then I'd stand
up for Open Source, as I did in the Pling talk, by pointing out that
plingput wasn't Open Source.

> [snip]
> Matthew Larsen wrote:
[snip]
>> I think FSF would get a bit upset if you whacked on a GNU symbol to a
>> system and called it open source!
> 
> I think the FSF would get upset if you put the GNU symbol on anything
> that wasn't a part of the GNU project!

They might do. But you could have GNU/FSF approved or similar.

> There is a problem with license proliferation. I think the OSI and the
> FSF help developers by providing definitive lists but I don't think
> it's something that the end user should have to be aware of. A FOSS
> badge would certainly help this problem, it would mean that an end
> user could chose a piece of software without having to understand the
> different licenses or even the differences between free software and
> open source.

Who would determine if something was FOSS? Wouldn't it be better to have
FSF approved and/or OSI approved sticker on it?

> [snip]
[snip]
> I agree, in my experience it is really confusing for people and I feel
> that it's one of the strengths of Ubuntu, that they have created a
> really strong, positive brand that people can easily understand.
> Something like that for FOSS would be of real benefit (maybe like a
> kite mark but more eye-catching).

But do people understand Ubuntu? Do they, mistakenly, think its free
software?
You could get a FSF kite mark. One problem with that is that FSF, IMO
mistakenly, say Debian isn't free because they maintain non-free
repositories even though non-free software isn't included on the CDs and
the non-free repositories are enabled in the install.

>> Microsoft don't turn up with a big banner saying "Proprietary Software".
>> They are a company and promote their products. We are trying to promote
>> a philosophical idea and not a company's products. We want people to
>> understand (and agree with!:) the idea not a particular product. We need
>> to explain how all these, perhaps seemingly random, bits come from that
>> philosophical idea. I want us to get a big poster explaining Free
>> Software and the 4 freedoms which should help make things more clear to
>> people.
> 
> Why can an idea not have a brand or logo?! A brand can be a way of
> linking the four freedoms in a recognisable way.

A idea can have a brand or logo but who would design and/or own the
logo? FSF? OSI? Who would determine if something was following the idea
and allowed to use the brand/logo?

> FWIW, I've already
> created that poster and shown it off at both Arcspace events.

Great work on the poster. I hope its helped.

>> The closest we have to an overarching organistion is the Free Software
>> Foundation but we are not a branch of them so we shouldn't promote under
>> that umbrella.
> 
> The FOSS movement has too many disparate organisations, it's confusing
> for us never mind someone who's still trying to grasp what a web
> browser is. A unified brand would enable us to keep these different
> groups but provide a way of linking them together.

That's freedom, the freedom to fork. There was the FSF as the main
organisation then some people decided to coin the term 'Open Source' and
form the OSI and change the idea and emphasis.

M.