Mike wrote:
I prefer "Open Source Library System". It IS Open source as it's under an open source licence. [...]
For a long time, we've had firms like Intel using "open source" to mean "look but don't touch". We've also got other groups looking to spin the term into something which covers their restricted software too, which really doesn't help. Even UK government departments have adopted conflicting definitions for it in the past. The "Open Source Initiative" was an initiative to get a trademark on the term "open source". It failed and I think it's time to face that truth and speak about free software again. There is no legal measure we can use to avoid explaining what we mean. Trying to do so leaves us open to abuse by people with bigger marketing budgets.
The term "Free" is being used less. Free also refers to non-open source code that you don't pay for. It's just infortunate the English does not have an perfect match for "libre".
That's not what I'm seeing. Maybe it's different where you are, still with no local Free Software Foundation. Both "open" and "source" have many other meanings and "source" really isn't obvious to most end users, in my experience. At least in free software, there's only one confusing word. To be honest, the tagline on the logo doesn't bother me greatly, but please make a logo available under a free software licence ASAP (GPL?) so that I can localise it as needed, like as part of the koha release. -- MJR/slef Koha England page at http://www.ttllp.co.uk/koha/