On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Robert L Krawitz wrote: > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:00:24 -0500 > From: Robert L Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: sven@xxxxxxxx > Cc: horkana@xxxxxxxxxxxx, gimp-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, > gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Why not allow the name to be configurable? > > 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, >> 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. I am not asking the GNU Image Manipulation Program to change name. I was asking why patches that might make it possible/easier for others to change the project name and branding would be rejected. I am aware of some the difficulties that would occur if the GIMP were to change name tomorrow which is why I want to make it clear that wasn't what I was asking. It is also extremely unlikel for a name change to ever happen which is why I was asking a subtley different question. I have accepted Svens answers on this matter and do not intend to push it further. I dont find the name amusing or clever but it does not get in the way of my image editing. > 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. While going through this process did Roger Leigh replace the name or did he abstract the name so that if some one was ever forced to change it again it could be done more easily? (the latter would of course take much more time) > This is probably the primary reason that 5.0 wasn't released perhaps a > month ago. I'm surprised the rebranding was not done seperately from the release, but that is probably only something that is obvious in hindsight. I would guess you changed the name of gimp-print to guten-print first and foremost because the project is seperate from the gimp but presumably you were aware that a small minority find the term "gimp" somewhat inappropriate and that it might be easier to market a different name. I wish Guten-Print the best of success with the new name and I encourage you to make as much publicity out of it as you can. (Still haven't seen any stories on it yet, just mailing list posts but I suppose I'll hear a lot more about it when 5.0 is released.) > > 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. Firefox started off as a fork of Mozilla, was codenamed mb2, then Pheonix then Firebird. I really doubt the clean abstraction of the name had anything to do with the legalities but as Sven suggested much more do to with the business plans of Netscape and the Mozilla foundation to allow rebranded versions of their browser. "Better a hundred branches than one fork". The project name could be have been changed crudely using grep and other tools or by messing around with the translations (something I may still look into) but it is another matter entirely to improve the abstraction of the code and make it so that the name is configurable and need only be changed in a few key places. The Mozilla foundation does want to encourage commercialisation of their product and the GIMP doesn't, fair enough. Sincerely Alan Horkan
