[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-marketing] GNUstep Foundation
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:53:38 +0100

On 2004-09-30 16:10:11 +0100 Nicolas Roard <address@hidden> wrote:

> Le 30 sept. 04, à 16:01, MJ Ray a écrit :
>> On 2004-09-30 14:11:48 +0100 Quentin Mathé 
>>> I'm all for it too. A foundation dedicated to GNUstep is probably the best
>>> choice from the legitimacy and visibility points of view.
>> Can you explain why? [...]
> For the very simple reason that the FSF is here to promote the GNU project, 
> not the GNUstep project.

I don't suggest asking them to promote it. You are right that they have other 
primary concerns and we need our own group to do it.

If they are willing to accept money and pay bills on Adam's say-so, that's 
three fewer big jobs to do. It's a role played by Software in the Public 
Interest ( for various groups. I know both SPI and FSF have had 
problems, but administration is not sexy hacking, so I think it's an 
achievement that both still exist. I think both orgs can accept money tax-safe 
in multiple countries.

Given the lack of sexiness in adminstration, I am puzzled why so many hacker 
groups want to fork administration. Do we have many wannabe form-fillers and 

I could probably accept it more if this was being motivated by tardiness or 
lack of transparency on FSF's part, but it looks like no-one even tried to work 
the current system before starting designing a new one. Maybe that's the sexy 
bit: designing new incorporation structures. Hacking law makes a change from 
hacking code, for most people, and superficially it looks similar. 
Unfortunately, incorporation is not like a program: you can't just kill it when 
you're bored with it, or simply orphan it and not answer the mail. Someone is 
going to have to run whatever is created, probably for years. If the number of 
active volunteers running it drops too low, then it's vulnerable to take-over 
and we see marketing dynamite like "GNUstep Foundation signs deal with 
Proprietary Bogey Corp".

Alternatively, maybe the sexy bit is marketing. Everyone thinks they can do 
marketing, but few people actually can do all of it. Listen to successful 
marketers and they'll talk about pilots and market research and response 
ratings and approval ratings. That's not sexy. People want to make adverts, try 
to brand their product and strut it around the marketplace like proud cattle. 
That's sexy, parading your cow around.

(Yes, I know I overuse the word "sexy" for this. Substitute whatever word makes 
you want, but I still can't forget a friend from university who overused the 
word in exactly this way. Somehow, with his accent, he could get away with it. 
-:) )

> [...] the name isn't that important, but I don't see your point. What 
> bother you with the name "GNUstep Foundation" ?

I am concerned that it's going to try to take over the project and run it by a 
group of people who talk out of their backs instead of doing real research, 
then go on to make a hash of it and damage GNUstep far more than the current 
lack of marketing effort. Little discussed so far actually requires a 
corporation, or is even made easier by it.

MJR/slef    My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
 Creative copyleft computing - village 6+7 Oct

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]