[IAEP] the SoaS term (was: Press release flurry planning...)

[Jonas Smedegaard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 08:55:15PM +0200, David Van Assche wrote:
>The term SoaS actually came from the ubuntu derived Sugar on a stick. 
>so by your logic, as it was 'coined' by an individual who chose to put 
>sugar on a usb stick using ubuntu, who by the same logic is the sole 
>owner and user of that term.

No, by my logic we (Sugarlabs) would let the inventor (Ubuntu) and the 
user (some Sugarlabs developers making a Fedora-derived distribution) 
resolve that trademark dispute.  If there is such dispute.


>I think that really hurts Sugar in general.

If the distribution now known as "Ubuntu" had chosen to promote itself 
as "Canonical Windows", then that would also theoretically hurt Gnome.

But should Gnome step in when someone makes shitty naming choices for a 
distribution that happens to contain - maybe even emphasize as its 
primary content - the Gnome desktop?

Should Sugarlabs do so for distributions containing Sugar?


>At events and conferences, when we choose to write these usb sticks or 
>give out cdroms with sugar, the user should have a choice as to which 
>underlying distro he wants to have (and yes it does make a difference), 
>but it should still be called what it actualls is - Sugar on a usb 
>stick.

It "should"?  Are Sugarlabs the word police?


>So when I say agnosticate the term, I mean use the term as it is 
>semantically appropriate.

Then be semantically correct and say "SoaS is a distribution containing 
Sugar on a usb stick" at conferences.

SoaS might be an abbreviation of just that for you.  It might be a brand 
of something specific for someone else.

By your logic, all Live-CDs should use "ix" as suffix, as did the famous 
Knoppix.  I don't buy that: Each Live-CD can choose their own name.


>I for one, will use that term to define openSUSE running as the base 
>with sugar running on top of it, and will market it as such. But I will 
>explain that it is available in multiple flavours....

I wish you all the best with that.  I honestly mean that.

But I recommend Sugarlabs to not adopt and govern your approach.



>On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Jonas Smedegaard<dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> Whatever happens, let each distribution choose their own name.  Or 
>> discuss with them to change name - I really don't care.
>>
>> What concerns me is that Sugarlabs do not dictate naming of external 
>> projects.
>
>I don't really get what you mean here...
>
>> ...and now comes the fun part: Do Sugarlabs feel that SoaS is not
>> "external"?
>
>I don't get what is meant by this... can u elaborate?

Hmmm - maybe I could, but I suspect that I am simply saying same points 
multiple times in different ways.  So if you were puzzled only about 
those two sentences but understood the other parts of my mail, then I 
suggest you just skip it - I believe you are not missing anything. :-)


>> I recomend to tream SoaS as a distribution, and I recommend Sugarlabs 
>> to leave the "distribution" task to others.  Be friendly to any 
>> distribution that includes Sugar - sure - but don't take on that 
>> challenge yourself.  There is plenty to do that is more 
>> Sugar-specific
>
>what challenge exactly?

The challenge of maintaining a distribution (as opposed to maintaining 
an X11 desktop environment).


Kind regards,

  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEAREDAAYFAko6nqkACgkQn7DbMsAkQLgKUQCfV6DZf5UM0yu4rNvK8E3zxnje
uL0AmwR/BMuyBMvKyOcbYtKyhmzhDkIM
=c645
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----