+1 Yup I think so too.
On 7 Dec 2012, at 13:30, Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that, provided that we decide to change name, we should choose a > completely new one to avoid confusion between Leelo and Apache Amber. > > +1 for a new name. > Tommaso > > 2012/12/7 Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> > >> >> On Dec 7, 2012, at 11:46 AM, Tommaso Teofili wrote: >> >>> thanks for bringing this to the table Antonio, if I recall correctly when >>> the name change is usually encouraged when there's already at least one >>> other software with the same name, in this case we're also talking about >>> OSS so it may be the case :-( >> >> Indeed my main "concerns" about the name Amber comes from this search >> >> http://www.ohloh.net/p?page=1&q=amber&ref=homepage&sort=relevance >> >> Regards >> >> Antonio >> >> >>> What do others think? >>> Tommaso >>> >>> >>> 2012/12/7 Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> >>> >>>> Hi *, >>>> >>>> some time ago I have opened PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12 [0] in order to double >>>> check Apache Amber will be a suitable name. >>>> >>>> I am still working on it but at a first glance it looks that this name >>>> might overlap with some other pre-existing software. >>>> So we might need to change the final name... :S >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Antonio >>>> >>>> >>>> [0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-12 >> >>
