[SFD-discuss] RFC: SFI Vision & Objectives

[Rik Tindall]

Hi Matt, SFD-discuss,

Matt Oquist wrote:
> 
> By stating this in our vision statement we're setting a new standard
> for SFI. That doesn't mean we've achieved it already. :)

Good response, thanks. Joining the far-distant dots does take time, and 
agreed that on this defining point we have duly begun.

>>> Objectives:
>>>    6: ...to be pragmatic, transparent, and responsible as an 
>>>    organization

Adding context, "pragmatic" is a giveaway, laden term here. In that it's 
Linus's respect-worthy catchphrase. But the great energy of SFD has 
largely come from visible brand neutrality: BSD is as good as Linux is 
as good as GNU is as good as Open-Source for Windows, for SFD purposes. 
This even-handed formula has worked exceedingly well, for SFD team 
building. Issue is thus taken with "FLOSS" for being an unnecessary 
agenda to change that.

So "pragmatic" in SFD's case is more likely to be to stick with the FOSS 
(steady project growth) status quo, imho.

>>> SoftwareFreedomDay.org :
>>>   Celebrating Free and Open Source Software [FOSS] in Your Community
> 
>> ..SFD home page - "Software Freedom Day is a global, grassroots 
>> effort to educate the public about the virtues and availability of 
>> Free and Open Source Software [FOSS]"
>>
>> "Decision on policy of terminology to be used:
>>     * FLOSS"
>>
>> http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/sfi/minutes/Minutes-07-03-01
>>
>> Why start confusing people like this now? Project contributors have been 
>> signed on to the standing SFD FOSS terminology/deal for three years 
>> already, so this seems both abrupt and inappropriate as a 'top-down' 
>> foisted change. It recurs in the SFI minutes, so there is no doubt about 
>> this muddying of the SFD project aims.
> 
> I think I'm less concerned than you are that "FOSS"->"FLOSS" will
> confuse people. Also, this is not a foisted change; we're having this
> conversation right now on this public list. That's the point...which
> brings us back to "transparency", above.

For us here, there's no confusion: they mean the same thing. Changing 
our language mid-course is better than doing it later, admittedly, if 
there is sufficient argument supporting it. But otherwise, it is the 
confusion sold into a predominantly uninformed marketplace that is the 
real issue. It looked like we'd made up our minds at the start, and 
positively.

That is, if you were establishing as a vendor of cola in the early 
twentieth century, you might have marketed under the brand name 'pespi' 
or as 'coke' - but not both. Deciding our most advantageous identity is 
fundamental to growth; an inability to discern between such similar 
contents might drive customers off in the direction of 'sprite', for 
e.g. This is a useful parallel to examine, at least.

But the substantive argument is this:

"Free" means free/libre in our world anyway, which is a parallel term to 
"Open Source". Open-source was implicit in Free Software from the start, 
so is actually a redundant spec to many. But as long as it's useful to 
work with Open-Source marketing, then it should be kept in balance with 
  Free Software - which is what the FOSS term achieves. There's no need 
to state Free/Libre if you are adding Open-Source, because that is 
spurious repetition of the very same meaning.

It strikes me that adding /Libre to Free, within FOSS, serves primarily 
one destructive purpose - to break up the phrase "Free Software". This 
is categorically both a bad idea and contrary to the more neutral 
flavour that SFD has assiduously attained. I'm sure there are very many 
of us who have adopted SFD heartily and specifically because of the 
clear and prominent sense in which Free Software has meaning within 
"Software Freedom". We do not wish to see this position undermined.

If it seems like I've taken this issue too seriously, let me explain. 
Our SFD team has grown steadily over the past three years, except for 
one major glitch encountered last year. And that was due to a 
Windows-based entrepreneur derailing our process somewhat, in a strong 
effort to shunt our SFD FOSS marketing tradition onto "FLOSS". This 
painful experience left such a deep impression that we probably now 
require SFI's explicit backing of FOSS, in order to continue.

> Lastly, we haven't even adopted the vision statement yet, it's still
> under discussion (which is what we're doing). And even if we had
> adopted it, it wouldn't've been implemented instantly.

Thanks, that's reassuring.

> So no worries -- is your reason for concern about changing "FOSS" to
> "FLOSS" that the target audience of SFD will be confused? I don't

Yes, largely. As above.

> personally have strong feelings one way or the other about using FOSS
> v.  FLOSS, but after our discussion at the F2F I am inclined toward
> FLOSS, and of course the argument there is that including "Libre"
> helps to *avoid* confusing our target audience. Do you disagree?

Completely. It's redundant verbiage to 'expand' FOSS to "FLOSS". Only 
negative outcomes can result from adopting it. Mainly because it adds 
the job of debating an unnecessary change while we need to be preparing 
our teams :) But next because there is zero logic to it anyway. Instead, 
it would be signifying some other force for change.

> Regards,
> Matt
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> SoftwareFreedomDay.org :
>    Celebrating Free and Open Source Software in Your Community
> info AT softwarefreedomday.org
> http://softwarefreedomday.org/
> 
> SFD Sponsors:
>     http://canonical.com
>     http://ibm.com
> 
> Software Freedom Day is a project of Software Freedom International.
> Software Freedom International is a registered corporation in the state of New
> Hampshire, USA.
> _______________________________________________
> SFD-discuss mailing list
> SFD-discuss at sf-day.org
> http://mail.sf-day.org/lists/listinfo/sfd-discuss

Cheers & hth,

Rik Tindall

pp SFD Team Christchurch, Aotearoa-NZ