On 15/05/2010 1:30 p.m., Sean McIntyre wrote:
As we go forward, how would you and others like the Koha 3.2 alpha software referred to? Does the phrase you have used here, "community supported Koha" work for the majority? How do other vendors deal with this terminology challenge? Our preference would be to use terms that everyone is comfortable with across the board, the greater value here is in the software not the labels affixed to that software.
Hi Sean, I am only very vaguely involved with Koha - basically lurking on IRC and the lists to keep up to date after some summer work that involved deploying Koha, in case I want to get more involved in the future - and as such can not attempt to speak for anyone in the community but myself.
From my (mostly) outsider point of view, the most logical system I can see would be to name based on treating "community supported Koha" as the original, and the PTFS versions as forks.
While I understand the situation is slightly more complicated than that, it seems like a good approximation. A fork indicates some difference from the original without making any implications as to superiority either way. Calling original Community, on the other hand, does imply inferiority for me due to its use in other projects, as pointed out by Reed. "Community supported Koha" could be referred to as simply "Koha" for the general public, tacking on something like "Standard" or "Trunk" as appropriate for the audience when necessary to make the distinction clear, and the PTFS/LibLime versions as "PTFS Enterprise/Harley Koha". My two cents. Braedon Vickers