> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:05:46 +0100
> From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Why not allow the name to be configurable?
> 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
> Contributors will be lost because they will look for the "Foo"
> project instead of the GIMP project.
(Sven I know you understand what I'm saying but other do not seem to get
exactly what I'm asking) To make myself as clear as I possibly can I'm
not asking for the project to change its name but to accept patches that
allow others to rebrand the gimp if they want.
> It would also make it way too easy for anyone who wants to make some
> quick money out of The GIMP.
This has happened already, people already package and sell the gimp
and their failure to provide adequate support has hurt the gimp brand.
If it was easier for them to rebrand it would be reasonable to expect
them to do so and make it clear that their product is not officially
endorsed by the gimp project.
(I'm referring to this widely reported incident of a Mac user who paid for
the gimp and got no service from the vendors and as a result was
excessively critical. http://www.wpdfd.com/editorial/wpd0504review.htm )
> We must not allow people to change the name by means of a simple
> configure option and let them benefit from our hard work.
First of all thank you for providing a clear explanation. If the issue
comes up again users wont be left in any doubt of how things stand and I
can direct them to your comments. I will add this to the wiki, as I think
it has been asked enough to be considered a Frequently Asked Question.
Free Software already allows them to do exactly the kinds of changes you
would rather not allow people to make. Despite the fact that it it might
happen anyway I can understand that you dont want to make it easy.
> > 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. I am all happy to ignore the very few people who are so
> narrow-minded as to having a problem with the name.
I'd rather see more people use Free Software.
I'm disappointed that people here do not seem to understand or accept that
some people (and it seems only to be a small minority of native English
speakers in particular) have issue with the name and that their concersns
are being dismissed as as some sort of narrow minded political
correctness. I dont believe the complaints will go away but as you are
happy to ignore the complaints I'll accept that and when I've responded
to the messages in this thread I will try not to bring the issue up
> 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.
I think it is a shame there is not a clear plan for the gimp and I think
it would be a very good thing if there was a plan and efforts made to
commericalise the gimp to allow developers like yourself (or others) to
get better rewarded for the work you do improving the gimp.
> > 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.
I suppose it is reasonable to draw the line somewhere.
Thanks again for making a clear decision and explaining it.
Gimp-user mailing list