[Koha] Foundation conversation
chris at bigballofwax.co.nz
Sat Oct 16 21:04:49 NZDT 2010
On 16 October 2010 20:54, <david at lang.hm> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, JAMES Mason wrote:
>>>> I like the "it's people -- not companies" scheme myself.
>>> Obviously I disagree in at least some limited form.
>>> However if people form the anti-PTFS side are unwilling to compromise, I see only two options:
>>> 1) Two Kohas with the same name that will only more confuse people and make the issues David Lang mentioned much worse and more wide spread, or
>>> 2) The anti-PTFS people finishing the fork of the product and coming up with a new name for there version.
>> Ed, the obvious option you missed was this one...
>> 3) The *PTFS* people finishing the fork of their product and coming up with a new name for their version. :)
>> well... thats already been done!!! its called LEK :)
>> seriously tho, why would we (read: everyone else in the greater-international-Koha-community) want to abandon our project's name (10 years folks!) because one 'stubbon' company forced us to change our website from A -> B
> for the simple reason that they own the name, and trying to browbeat a
> company into changing a name they own may be substantially more work than
> renaming the community version.
How exactly do they own the name? The own the koha.org domain name
sure. HLT has the european country mark on Koha, donated by Biblibre,
which they obtained from their French trademark, which predates any
trademarks registered anywhere else.
So I dont think it's that clear cut.
Having said that, no one has suggested attempting to browbeat anyone
into changing the name.
>> the Koha project continues regardless of what PTFS decides to do in the future
> under some name or another, with more or less confusion of what is what,
> and with anyone who gets confused and asks questions about the wrong
> version in the wrong place getting an earful about the other side.
> I have no bone in this fight. I have not been offended personally by
> PTFS, and I don't know anyone there or have any business
> relationship with anyone there either.
> other FOSS projects that have had the name owned by someone they didn't
> like have changed their name (ethereal/wireshark isa perfect example here)
I repeat they arent the sole owners of the name.
> you may feal that you have the moral right to the name, but the fact is
> that they have been paying for the name, if push comes to shove it
> will be quite a legal fight to get the name forcefully, and that (probably
> lengthy) fight will just serve to further confuse things in the meantime.
Or we could just get back to developing Koha and stop worrying about
what is really a non issue.
More information about the Koha