Skip to main content

#mozilla 'foundation' finally found the issue with its corporation (greed) and #firefox (subpar #programming in recent years)

It was all about the logo
Firefox: The Evolution Of A Brand

Great quote! That is the essence of “Marketing for Monopolies”. Small entities are not able to "groom the public consciousness".

"grooming" is not the appropriate word, of course:"manipulate" is.

Speaking of "growing a brand" - "GNU license compatible" does not have the resonance needed. "Libre" is a big improvement.

“GNU license compatible” does not have the resonance needed. “Libre” is a big improvement.
but theyre both technical terms (in that they refer to specific things) and the terms exist for different things. "gnu license compatible" only refers to a subset of what is libre.

copyleft is a subset of whats libre.

gnu license compatible is a subset of BOTH copyleft and permissive (which are each subsets of whats libre.)


I'm just looking for a good "marketing" label. "Copyleft" does not have the sound that would appeal to a lot of people either. I like it, but that's me...

How about "generous" software?

youre trying to start with the wording. get the concepts down first-- it will help you find the right words.

"free software" refers to both permissive-licensed software and copylefted software.

if youre trying to find an alternative term for "copyleft" im not sure what would be better. the whole point of copyleft is to preserve (demand) the freedoms from upstream to downstream. you can do anything with the software EXCEPT make it into non-free software. thats what copyleft is.

permissive lacks the requirement to make everything downstream free, but it also lacks the overhead involved. so if you have $0 and 0 bandwidth, youre better off with permissive because it is cheaper. and you still have the option of making every derivative free, but you dont have to concern yourself as much with mirroring every bit of source. this is a shift from freedom to convenience that appeals to the bsd crowd.

so in practice copyleft increases source availability but decreases the number of people repackaging/spreading distros.

permissive increases people spreading free... show more

its worth noting that "copyleft" doesnt explicitly require the availability of sources. it does within the context of the gpl, but the origins of the term "copyleft" are just a pun on copyright that meant "not restricted."

stallman adopted the term and today it is associated with licensing because in 90+% of historical uses, copyleft is now associated with a category of licenses. the original, less meaningful (less specific) use of the phrase was never used very much.

mozilla team member brett gaylor did a documentary where he used the term "copy left" to refer to people that are in favour of sharing, versus the "copy right" to refer to copyright maximalists, though fortunately that never caught on.

I’m trying to find a “marketing term” for the class of software that is essentially GNU GPL V2 or GNU GPL V3, but not necessarily either. I know this is a small set, but it is a concept that deserves a label - and more importantly an attractive-sounding marketing symbol.

Yes, “Sharealike Software” sounds good, and does not have “commie” or legalistic connotations. How about “Generous Software”?

i think generous is far too vague. sounds nice-- doesnt tell you anything about it.

share"alike" is established from the old phrase "share and share alike" and actually implies the same terms apply downstream-- which is what copyleft implies.

"reciprocal" "mutual" "universal" (universal is too vague. also misleading.)

Yeah, "sharing" is good. The old, bad association of "share" with "shareware" is pretty-much forgotten.