[Linux-aus] Should we change? Yes. To change is to grow.

Russell Stuart russell-linuxaus at stuart.id.au
Tue May 1 10:38:26 EST 2012

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 08:39 +1000, Paul Gear wrote:
> To such a person, the terms "F(L)OSS", "Free Software", "Software
> Libre", "Open Source", and their derivatives are so vague as to be
> meaningless, despite the fact that they're well-defined jargon to us.

I was looking over Donna's list of names and the list on the wiki, and I
after seeing words "Open Technology" a few times I came to the reverse

The attraction of "Open Technology" is it's inclusiveness.  However if
you favour instant brand name recognition over inclusiveness "Open
Source" is definitely the one to pick.  There are many outsiders who use
the words "Open Source" as keywords describing an example of alternate
way of doing things that clearly works (often with overtones of being
morally superior).  Academic publications is one example, and hardware
design is another.

So if LA wants the brand name that is most likely to be understood by
the media and politicians at a glance - then it should be "Open Source".
It's goal is to be more attractive to hacker spaces, robot competitions
and the like, then perhaps "Open Technology".  As you say other names
like FLOSS, "Free Software" and so on suffer the disadvantages of both -
they are not well recognised outside of our group, and they aren't

More information about the linux-aus mailing list