mikadoZero <mikadoz...@yandex.com> writes: > I have search guix-devel for this and did not find it. I would like to > [ snip ] Thanks for looking into this.
> # Proactive name change > > Looking at the pug thread above shows that it would have been nice if > Jade had not been forced to change their name so quickly and could have > engaged it's community further on ideas for a new name. > > This raises the idea that proactively changing Guix's name might be > better than reacting to a forced name change. A benefit to a proactive > name change is being able to chose the timing. So for example the name > change could be planned to coincide with the 1.0 release which I have > heard is approaching. Similar to a butterfly emerging from a > chrysalis. Maybe there is a opportunity here and this could be turned > into a nice announcement. I humbly disagree with proactively doing anything of the sorts; first of all, there are two separate issues (as you mentioned): - Are we allowed to call Guix Guix? - Do we want to call Guix Guix? As such, I think it is premature to proactively change something which *might* not even be a (legal) problem at all, let alone something desired by the community. I *do* agree that these questions should probably be answered before 1.0 comes around. > [ snip ] > # Contacting Express Logic > > Also it might be good to reach out to Express Logic as they may not > actually have any problem with the Guix free software project using the > name they have trademarked. I really think that "software" is much too broad a category to consider for a trademark clash in this case. From what I can see, there is barely any overlap between our Guix and the GUIX product that Express Logic is working on. This might just be my vocational bias in action as a software engineer though, and of course; I Am Not A Lawyer. > > # Summary > > I am not recommending any specific course of action. I just want to > start a discussion. Point taken :-).
