[GNUz] How does GLU/GNUz differ from CLUG?

[Rik Tindall]

Timothy Musson wrote re:
> 
>>> ..FLOSS Australia, FOSS Australia,
>>> or something else entirely is all on the cards.
> 
> Hey, that's great!
> (I like FLOSS Australia: it's fun to say and easy for new people to
> remember, so it should be pretty good for promoting yourselves :^)

Another perspective is to say it's dumb and confusing. Like, what has 
getting the steak out from between your teeth got to do with software?

Our own, unique FOSS trading term is _far_ more beneficial, and why 
isn't that _obvious_ to everyone? :)

But good luck in the naming hunt, and each to their own opinion..

>> *For the sake of simpler marketing!* and more.
> 
> I don't really understand this, Rik. The "libre" sense is the only
> meaning of Free that the FSF is interested in. Price just isn't an
> issue. See the "Free Software Definition":
> 
>   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> 
> (Though, sure, that kind of freedom results in existing Free Software
> generally being available at little or no cost. But that's just a nice
> side effect.)

Yep. We know the received version. Luckily, it granted us the ability 
and the right to interpret and emphasise the component legacy in our own 
distinct ways. Which we are doing, or not.

> The FSF often grumbles about the fact that we have to make do with the
> ambiguous word "Free" in English, because the language doesn't have a
> more apt word, like "libre".

Let's not grumble. Let's simplify, and celebrate to run with the popular 
conception of "Free" - ultimately, everybody wants it!

> In most languages, the term for "Free Software" works out to something
> like "software libre" or "freedom software". So in countries where folks
> don't speak English, they have a good idea what Free Software is about
> just by the name. It's about freedom, not price.  But in English we're
> stuck with "Free Software", which leads to confusion.

Unless you resolve it as I am suggesting, by questioning this one piece 
of GNU convolution, to stick with popular usage and say and mean Free, 
in all its possible senses (as in F2 - Freedom to redistribute/share). 
That happens to have been the honest and stated motivation for why RS 
and LT created their versions of not-unix in the first place too - to 
avoid Unix and Minix license fees respectively. So lets cut the 
afterthought BS, and get on with 'selling' (promoting) this little 
dynamo - on its greatest obvious appeal to the greatest number of people 
- as per design, and reflecting the modern circulation reality.

> ("Open Source" conveys the idea that you might be able to look at the
> source, but that's all. And unlike "Free Software", the term "Open
> Source" doesn't improve when translated into other languages.)
> 
> So, I don't see any problem at all with either "FLOSS" or "FOSS".
> 
> Tim

Cool. As Linus said, 'the main thing is to use it'. See you there!

Cheers
-- 
Rik