On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 10:13 +0200, Stephan Assmus wrote: > I agree with the general notion that re-packaging an existing Haiku release > and adding a few more pieces of software is not different from what ends up > on our harddrives when we customize our installation. > > But still everybody seems to want to hold on to the concept of forcing > people to change the name from Haiku to something else if the changes > become too much. Or if they include development code or whatever. IMHO, > this is just too complicated. Who decides what is just a customization and > what is diverting too much from Haiku's unique look and feel? It becomes > impossible to draw a clear line. Yes, this is true. Policing this alone can be a tedious thing and could even potentially become a source of friction. > But something else is bothering me. If distributions are being made to > address specific needs, and we all agree that we would like to address > these needs in Haiku itself eventually, then isn't the obvious, preferable > solution that whoever puts in work to make a customized version of Haiku > should instead be encouraged to work directly with the project? Yes, that would be the ideal. > In general, > we try our best to welcome new contributors. I dare say that most people do > not have a hard time getting their patches into Haiku, as long as they work > and follow the coding style. There are some exceptions to this, I am > painfully aware of (Brecht may throw something in my direction). The > biggest single reason for patches being hard to get commited is when they > are fairly complex and introduce new problems along with solving others. > > Anyway, my point is we want people to work with us, not in parallel. And my > first argument was that the trademark policy needs to be crystall clear. > For these two reasons, I would say we should not make it any easier to spin > off custom distributions of Haiku. We should protect the Haiku name and > logo, period. If people want to influence the distribution to address > specific needs, but they don't want to release something not being called > Haiku, they have the very sensible option to become a project contributor. > Or they need to take the extra hassle of removing a few strings and > replacing some bitmaps. Which is easy to do, contrary to what some seem to > believe. I personally agree with this. However, it is going to be difficult to reconcile such a firm stance on trademarks -- which can sometimes be seen by some as too inflexible or even hostile -- with the desire to embrace community or third party efforts as a means of increasing the chances of more people becoming direct participants to the project. This can be very tricky. Regards, Jorge/aka Koki