From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
   Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:05:46 +0100

   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.

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                                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Tall Clubs International  -- or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gimp Print   --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to