Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

> You are in the lead developer in charge and can do anything you want
> and I certainly wouldn't expect you to make the changes but I'd feel
> a lot better if you gave a good reason to reject patches that would
> make it easier to get more people to use Free Software?

I seriously doubt that the name is effectively keeping GIMP from being
used. And I am all happy to ignore the very few people who are so
narrow-minded as to having a problem with the name.

> 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.

> Why require people to fork or maintain their own patchsets for the
> sake of a little extra configurability.

So that it becomes harder for them to do this. And if they really
think it's worth all the hassle, well, then they can do it.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to