On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Christopher Howard
<chow...@indicium.us> wrote:
> Stephen Griffiths wrote:
> When I mentioned "forking the project" I wasn't thinking of having a
> version of GIMP out there that was actually following a fully separate
> development path with a bunch of disgrunted GIMP developers. Rather, it
> could be the exact same thing except with a patched-in configure option
> or something that allowed rebranding. For example, in Gentoo (a source
> based Linux distribution) when you compile Firefox, you can pass in an
> "iceweasel" configure option that rebrands it with the Debian logos, or
> you can pass in a "bindist" option that rebrands it with generic branding.

Sure.. except, I listed the things that would be needed for that. If
you do not do at least most of those things, you would only be doing a
partial rebranding. You would have parts of the overall package
calling itself GIMP rather than the new name. If this would happen,
the confusion caused by it almost certainly would be more 'expensive'
in terms of user confusion/disgruntlement than simply leaving GIMP
branded as.. GIMP.

I'd also like to mention that I find the
iceweasel/icecat/shiretoko/minefield/firefox thing quite confusing. It
seems kind of useful in an abstract sense (minefield is .. dangerous,
iceweasel is strictly FOSS,..). There is significant differentiation
of mascots happening, though, unlike what you seem to be suggesting.

Rebranding could be automatic, but it couldn't IMO be simply a matter
of substituting text strings as you suggest with your 'configure
option' idea.
You would need to also have a different mascot, and consequently
regeneration of images would be needed (using a set of unbranded
screenshots + a set of mascot images).

It just occurred to me: the 'text substitution' would need to rewrite
PO files in order for I18N to function correctly.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to