[Linux-aus] Should Linux Australia change its name? : suggestions

[Janet Hawtin]

This discussion has happened before.
My feelings about it last time were that the term linux is sound bite
friendly and offers a fairly strong brand. That the linux name as an
anchor point was smaller than total scope of the org but was specific
and recognised and that the term open source can also be understood to
represent a smaller subset of the technologies/communities which are
actually included because open source and free software represent
different venn diagram circles too.

I feel it would be sad if the organisation described itself as open
source and then was assumed or was actually not inclusive and
supportive of free software goals and technologies. I realise that
this is probably not what is intended. Perhaps it is an inclusion that
has to be walked and not talked =).  So imho changing the name to open
source shifts the venn diagram circle but does not necessarily produce
a holistic circle.

Finding a name then that does feel like it is inclusive of the whole
gamut is tricky without getting cumbersome.
The following names are inclusive but are they soundbite friendly?
what would they be like to work with in media?

> 1. AUS-FOSS : Australian Association of Free & Open Source Societies
> "Representing Free & Open Source Software / Hardware Development and
> Promotional Organisations all over Australia"

> 2. ANZA-FOSS : Australian & New Zealand Association of Free & Open Source
> Societies
> "Representing Free & Open Source Software / Hardware Development and
> Promotional Organisations in Oceania (or the Southern Pacific Region)"

Perhaps would it be useful to create a group within LA that lobbies on
free and open source software. You could name it ANZA-FOSS (or
whatever) lobby group, subcommittee of LA. Do some media work
promoting open source with that group and see how the name works in
practice in interviews and media reports. Do you get good inclusive
clarity from that name? Does it function any better than the current
name? If so then rename the whole after the lobby group. This gives
some structural reason for continuing the both names in the short term
and a way to shift from one to another without starting from zero
awareness with a new name?

With whichever name the group does great work.
I think the brand will ultimately build around the useful work of the
group with whichever name.

Best wishes

Janet