On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Marc Lehmann wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:39:46AM +0100, Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> > > Is there?
> >
> > Yes.
> I didn't see any evidence for that yet.

You have not disproved it exists, you just choose not to see it.

It is not surprising non-native English speakers have a different
understanding of the word gimp.

> > At the very least you have both me and the recent submitter saying there
> > is a derogatory impact, that is all it takes.
> Certainly not. An "impact" certainly requires more than two people whining
> a bit :)

Now you are just being rude and dismissive, a smiley face doesn't make it
any less so.

I provided links to the last time this was discussed and there was a bug
report filed then too

You are arguing that a small impact is no impact at all.

> You will find amny complains about many other aspects of gimp. That does not
> mean there is an actual problem.

No one claimed there are not other bigger problems.  It might even be a
good sign that name is the biggest complaint some users have.

> > As I said before offering to accept patches which made it possible to
> > rebrand the gimp in a clean maintainable way without the need to fork
> > could bring this dicussion to screeching halt until someone shows some
> > code.
> Dropping this topic would also bring this to a screeching halt. Depends on
> your...
> > Isn't that the Free Software way?

by which I mean to accept patches which allow things to be changed in a
maintainable way rather than actively encouraging people to fork your

(maybe that isn't the way, maybe the Free software way is to insist on big
wasteful forks like the Emacs XEmacs split or the GGC EGCS!)

> The free software idea is not to accept just any patch.

Crudely performing a find and replace to change the name to something else
would be "just any patch" but abstracting out the name cleanly so GIMP
could still be GIMP and also be something else too (perhaps depending on a
configure option) would not be "just any patch".  it should be possible to
change the name in a way that doesn't create as much of a maintaince
burden as forking.  Abstracting out the APPNAME is a concept built into

Look at this message where tml bemoans the effort wasted on forks such as

> give users of the software the ability to change it, which is exactly
> whats being done here.
> If "free softare" meant to accept any patch regardless of how silly,
> broken or useless it is (while increasing the maintainance burden) most

the suggestion is to allow patching to avoid the maintaince burden and
wasted effort of a fork.

> projects would be in rather bad state. No, free software means you can
> change it, it doesn't mean that everybody else is your servant and has to
> follow your orders.
> Besides, there is no patch, AFAIK.

Sven said no patch would be accepted even if it existed so there is no
reason for anyone to start one.  The only option seems to be to fork.

> Red herring. If you want to create another version of gimp under a
> different name, you are certainly allowed to do so, as has been said a
> number of times.
> Wether you call it a fork or Kimp does not make any difference.
> Please note you can take the sources and change the name without
> creating a fork in the common sense,

Whether or not you call a set of unnofficial changes a fork or not there
were plenty of complaints when the GIMPshop developer created his

> just as what you could do with diferent versions of Ubuntu.

Canonical dont let just anyone use the Ubuntu name, but they managed
to get others with different ideas to help promote Ubuntu rather than
push them away.


Alan Horkan

Inkscape http://inkscape.org
Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to