-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mads Toftum wrote: > > +1 - there seems to have started some sort of fascination with changing > names where there is no need. In general I'm not really a fan of naming > things so that it is impossible to guess what a project is (that's hard > enough as it is already).
How would UIMA be pronounced in languages other than English? Aside from that, I'm wary of tedious and uninspiring names, like 'log4j'. I'm also wary of retaining names for projects that have had an existence prior to Apache. One reason is possible IP issues, and another is confusion. If some commercial concern has a product based on UIMA and they say so.. do they mean Apache UIMA? Pre-Apache UIMA? If they adopt the Apache package, do we need to worry about brand issues? (Answer: yes.) This is a new set of IP attributes for this item. I seriously think it needs a new name.. and not least because it's coming from the company with probably the greatest investment in software IP on the planet. With all the (baseless) remarks about Apache becoming a BigCo shill and clearinghouse, I see contraindications for maintaining the BigCo name. Just MHO. - -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRUDcPJrNPMCpn3XdAQLWLgQAnvFImsyLzZnkhIcxOpIn9x/LMjmlMGOq kRObYnnZFHwU/367BnrcajZyb4ttgviRkfcAbZvAAYHp+FHK2LFRCZPnXijimDYk jV85hQ0x3cRcwKhquq43ZmNEE9pTmGIj8xqy9oZmw/klgfgCo6DOrPTvKRJne6r8 O5Kk/g3eBGg= =+Hf1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
