[Koha] Foundation conversation

[ed c]

--- On Sat, 10/16/10, Chris Cormack <chris at bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote:


> I think you are confusing the issues ed. Complaining 
> about bad behaviour is not the same as caring enough 
> about a domain the project no longers uses, to allow 
> for a stacked foundation.

I am not the one that said "used to care about" the assets when it is clear that members of the community keep referring to it. It is not only the domain, recently there were complaints about a logo. The Koha logo is an asset registered to PTFS in the United States and other countries according to Horowhenua Library Trust Koha Subcommittee report dated April 29, 2010 [1]. Thus, if they want to change or make a different logo (asset), at least in the US, they have the right. It is their asset. So, no I am not confusing the issues.

> As for the fork, you have it wrong too, there are 
> most definitely some forks, Koha is not one of them.

I probably wasn't clear what I meant about forks but it really isn't of importance. So, point taking, and accepted.


> I don't see why we should have to rename, how about
> we just keep using koha-community.org and working 
> on Koha.

As long as their are two (or more) versions of Koha that are different without different names, it is going to lead to confusion by people that might consider using the software (which was my scenario 1 below). I didn't say you had to rename it, I said that is the only way I see this confusion will not continue to exist and get worse - which incidentally was a concept someone else originally brought up on this list, not me.


> Ill make you a deal, i won't mention koha.org again
> if that will assuage your worry that I want it back
> enough to rush in a foundation with special treatment
> for one company.

I am not sure what you mean. You already said you don't want to rush this.

> Chris

Edward

[1] http://koha-community.org/hlt-koha-committee-report-on-discussions-with-ptfs/