Authored Comments

immediately after i read this blog post, i realized that the message we want to get through is that the sw is made by people and that there're individuals who are responsible for it - "owners". that allows us to address issues directly (try to do it with proprietary sw - you hit a wall of "support" and sales).
after i read all the comments, i think that the feeling we want to evoke is trust. the customer buys our confidence. open, in my eyes, has this "stain" of "at everyone's disposal", especially in the eyes of stake holders - people who're actually pouring the money into the projects / companies. i don't know if community software is the best name for re-branding , but it certainly creates a feeling of security, confidence, support, trust, responsibility. it means that there actually are people responsible for the sw. someone here mentioned the F500 companies helping the sales. well, you guys have been using the confidence in F(L)OSS of others to make your sales. nothing wrong with it, but it'll be more likely if we can get the stories closer to the potential customers with a term that is closer to people and requires less of an explanation. open is for hippies (people who fully understand and appreciate what's behind it), but who can actually be one at work where there are pressures and money is sometimes the only value?