<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div>Gah,<div><br><div><div>On 01/05/2012, at 11:36 AM, Mark Walkom wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">On 1 May 2012 10:38, Russell Stuart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:russell-linuxaus@stuart.id.au" target="_blank">russell-linuxaus@stuart.id.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
So if LA wants the brand name that is most likely to be understood by<br>
the media and politicians at a glance - then it should be "Open Source".<br>
It's goal is to be more attractive to hacker spaces, robot competitions<br>
and the like, then perhaps "Open Technology". As you say other names<br>
like FLOSS, "Free Software" and so on suffer the disadvantages of both -<br>
they are not well recognised outside of our group, and they aren't<br>
inclusive.<br></blockquote></div><br>Perhaps a general parent advocacy organisation with children for hardware and software?<br></blockquote><br></div><div>That's part of the point of this conversation and it illustrates it perfectly.</div><div><br></div><div>In a way it might be easier to just create a new organisation from scratch and then invite Linux Australia to federate with or be absorbed by it...</div><div><br></div><div>DSL</div><br></div></body></html>