Aaron, the problem with your grolabonk proposal is that it would, I think, only make things more confusing. You demonstrate this when you say:

grolabonk itself would be a term we'd reserve for "kde apps that the kde project ships"

If we started to use that kind of brand, I should imagine a lot of people would just ignore it. How many people would start using it, and how many would understand it? I don't think creating a new name for a clumsy and confusing phrase that people don't really use is the way forward. To really make it work would require a huge marketing effort that would, IMO, be a wasted effort because the problem you identify really isn't that big an issue. I think an easier solution is just to say "all apps using KDE libraries are KDE apps, and all developers should try to adopt this use of the term".

As far as I understand it, the decision to ship apps with major KDE releases is fairly ad-hoc with an opaque decision process (at least to those not directly involved in the discussions). To adopt a term like grolabonk you'd need to present a very clear description of what grolabonk is, including a rationale for apps and libraries being shipped in the main KDE modules and why some apps are only supported with SVN access, web space etc. You'd also have to explain why it's important that this distinction is being made, and what it means for non-grolabonk KDE apps.

You'd also come up against the problem with this phrase: "the KDE Project develops the K Desktop Environment, which is released as a set of packages called grolabonk, yet third-party developers also release KDE applications that aren't part of grolabonk." Here the third-party apps share the name of the organisation behind the product, and the generic product brand, but not the product name itself. With your Apple / MacOS example, it's more sane because the third-party apps are for MacOS, the product, and so share the name of the product not the organisation behind it. That probably makes no sense but I know what I mean :)

So on to my suggestion of changing the project... I really like Roberto's idea of Kaleidos. As a commentor in my blog pointed out, it's quite elegant since:

Kaleidos would be the makers of KDE; there would be lots of third-party KDE apps; KDE apps included with KDE would be Kaleidos apps. And what is KDE? The Kaleidos Desktop Environment.

So you'd not need to change any domain names, dump the KDE logos, lose trademarks on KDE, KDE e.V., the KDE League or any of that. Everything would centre around "KDE", but instead of "The KDE Project" we'd use "Kaleidos" (or whatever we chose). You would need to trademark Kaleidos, design a new logo, amend the web sites accordingly and embark on a big marketing effort to get the new project name out there, just as companies do when they change their name. It could piggyback the KDE4 marketing push, which I hope will be huge, a kind of coming of age for the community. Maybe people just don't see enough benefit in the idea to make that amount of effort.

Anyway, a summary of my rambling is:

1) Introducing a new term for "kde apps that the kde project ships" wouldn't solve a lot
2) The worthwhile alternative of introducing a new name for the project would, as you say, be a lot of effort and perhaps too much for other people
3) An alternative is just not to bother: clarify that "kde app" means "app using KDE libraries", which is already the dominant meaning of the term, and leave it at that