From: Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:05:46 +0100 Alan Horkan <horkana@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have to ask why reject such patches? Because IMO the name is important. If we allow the name to be changed easily, our users will not any longer know what software they are using. Contributors will be lost because they will look for the "Foo" project instead of the GIMP project. It would also make it way too easy for anyone who wants to make some quick money out of The GIMP. We must not allow people to change the name by means of a simple configure option and let them benefit from our hard work. Changing the source code and documentation is the easiest part of it. The hard part is changing the web site, references all over the net, etc. I speak here from ongoing experience -- the Gimp-Print project is in the process of renaming to Gutenprint. Changing the source took Roger Leigh perhaps a week or so, but the web site, hosting, etc. are still moving along very slowly, and we have a lot of work to do. This is probably the primary reason that 5.0 wasn't released perhaps a month ago. > If a project as big as Mozilla Firefox allows it name to be > changed, why would it be an issue for the gimp? For Firefox having the name configurable is part of the business plan. I can't find any such note in the GIMP's business plan. Heck, I can't even find the plan. Firefox had a little legal problem on their hands, and didn't have much choice. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@xxxxxxxxxxxx Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
