On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David C. Rankin drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2011 07:28 AM, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
<snip>
Recently I saw in the KDE forum that somebody suggested that Trinity could be named "KDE Classic" to empathize the connection with all the KDE heritage and history and also underline that it is the true KDE.
I think I should agree that this is reasonable idea.
- It would spare you from re-branding and re-drawing the artwork.
- KDE is well known desktop and brand.
- Many KDE3 apps claim they are written for KDE. This may create confusion
with some users if they use Trinity.
- Continuous version system (KDE Classic 4 etc vs. Trinity 4).
- You empathize that KDE3 did not dead, and KDE Classic is the true KDE rather
than KDE SC 4.
- Parallels with Mac OS Classic, Windows Classic (a Windows appearance theme)
terms.
- You can keep the both names: "KDE Classic by Trinity project" etc.
I thought many times what would happen if the creators of KDE4 named their desktop "Plasma" or something and left the brand of KDE to KDE3. I think in that case KDE4 would not be so popular because the users would not associate it with KDE and perceived only KDE3 as the last true KDE. Indeed the name means very much.
If you look at the openSuSE and kde lists as early as 2008, I thought "KDE Classic" made sense for kde.org for 4 reasons:
(1) there was no rational reason for 'abandoning' the kde3 code - it was a fantastic desktop;
(2) kde3 and kde4 are not mutually exclusive, they can both exist side-by-side,
(3) continuing to offer kde3 provided users a 'choice' of kde desktops (which is what open-source is supposed to be all about), and
(4) the manpower provided by kde.org required to maintain kde3 was minimal compared to the requirements of developing the new kde4.
Basically, it was a "why throw the baby out with the bath water?" issue.
I think kde.org may be more receptive to this idea now than they were 2 years ago and this project has proven the kde3 can be maintained and moved into the future with virtually no resources from kde.org, ...and... to be fair I should also add a 5th reason it makes sense for kde.org to continue KDE Classic. It provides them with a fallback:
(5) "what do we do when kde4 blows up in our face?"
A discussion started on another thread on whether to keep the name Trinity Desktop Environment or to rename to KDE Classic. I thought I'd make this discussion a bit more obvious to those who may want to provide input.
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David C. Rankin drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com wrote:
On 03/03/2011 07:28 AM, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
<snip> >> Recently I saw in the KDE forum that somebody suggested that Trinity >> could be >> named "KDE Classic" to empathize the connection with all the KDE >> heritage and >> history and also underline that it is the true KDE. >> >> I think I should agree that this is reasonable idea. >> >> - It would spare you from re-branding and re-drawing the artwork. >> - KDE is well known desktop and brand. >> - Many KDE3 apps claim they are written for KDE. This may create >> confusion >> with some users if they use Trinity. >> - Continuous version system (KDE Classic 4 etc vs. Trinity 4). >> - You empathize that KDE3 did not dead, and KDE Classic is the true KDE >> rather >> than KDE SC 4. >> - Parallels with Mac OS Classic, Windows Classic (a Windows appearance >> theme) >> terms. >> - You can keep the both names: "KDE Classic by Trinity project" etc. >> >> I thought many times what would happen if the creators of KDE4 named >> their >> desktop "Plasma" or something and left the brand of KDE to KDE3. I >> think in >> that case KDE4 would not be so popular because the users would not >> associate >> it with KDE and perceived only KDE3 as the last true KDE. Indeed the >> name >> means very much. >> >> >> > > If you look at the openSuSE and kde lists as early as 2008, I thought > "KDE > Classic" made sense for kde.org for 4 reasons: > > (1) there was no rational reason for 'abandoning' the kde3 code - it > was a > fantastic desktop; > > (2) kde3 and kde4 are not mutually exclusive, they can both exist > side-by-side, > > (3) continuing to offer kde3 provided users a 'choice' of kde desktops > (which > is what open-source is supposed to be all about), and > > (4) the manpower provided by kde.org required to maintain kde3 was > minimal > compared to the requirements of developing the new kde4. > > Basically, it was a "why throw the baby out with the bath water?" issue. > > I think kde.org may be more receptive to this idea now than they were 2 > years > ago and this project has proven the kde3 can be maintained and moved > into the > future with virtually no resources from kde.org, ...and... to be fair I > should > also add a 5th reason it makes sense for kde.org to continue KDE > Classic. It > provides them with a fallback: > > (5) "what do we do when kde4 blows up in our face?"
A discussion started on another thread on whether to keep the name Trinity Desktop Environment or to rename to KDE Classic. I thought I'd make this discussion a bit more obvious to those who may want to provide input.
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
Tim
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Timothy Pearson kb9vqf@pearsoncomputing.net wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
It seems like a very likely possibility we will compete, very few people actually like KDE4, and they've all been in real life. Practically everyone in the online world prefers KDE3.
We may be able to just prepare the rebranding and keep the original stuff in the actual system, then switch on command if they want us to.
On Thursday 03 March 2011 20:55:13 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything.
As I know, different distributions used the KDE trade mark even with heavily patched KDE with different software included and different artwork. If it is a registered trade mark, possibly there are some usage rules that permit third parties to deliver patched KDE without changing the trade mark or explicit permission?
I think Trinity even if achieves high rate of development will still be a modified KDE3, won't it?
And I saw no project that used however heavily modded KDE under a separate branding...
KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
On Thursday 03 March 2011 19:55:13 Timothy Pearson wrote: [...]
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
Tim
Or we can ask KDE e.V. and even sign an agreement with them.
On Thu March 3 2011 09:55:13 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
At some stage I would even like to see all the kfoo renamed to tfoo so that they can become first-class file-system citizens in mixed KDE/Trinity installations.
--Mike Bird
+1
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Mike Bird mgb-trinity@yosemite.net wrote:
On Thu March 3 2011 09:55:13 Timothy Pearson wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during
this
transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
At some stage I would even like to see all the kfoo renamed to tfoo so that they can become first-class file-system citizens in mixed KDE/Trinity installations.
--Mike Bird
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mike Bird mgb-trinity@yosemite.net wrote:
At some stage I would even like to see all the kfoo renamed to tfoo so that they can become first-class file-system citizens in mixed KDE/Trinity installations.
Tonsole, Tonversation, Tate, Twrite...
I doubt those would become very popular under their new names ^.^
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mike Bird mgb-trinity@yosemite.net wrote:
At some stage I would even like to see all the kfoo renamed to tfoo so that they can become first-class file-system citizens in mixed KDE/Trinity installations.
Tonsole, Tonversation, Tate, Twrite...
I doubt those would become very popular under their new names ^.^
Haha, "Tonversation", "Tonsole" :)
Twrite would actually be ok :P
Best regards, Tiago
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo, referending to QT backend based KDE libraries.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Tiago Marques tiagomnm@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Mike Bird mgb-trinity@yosemite.net wrote:
At some stage I would even like to see all the kfoo renamed to tfoo so that they can become first-class file-system citizens in mixed KDE/Trinity installations.
Tonsole, Tonversation, Tate, Twrite...
I doubt those would become very popular under their new names ^.^
Haha, "Tonversation", "Tonsole" :)
Twrite would actually be ok :P
Best regards, Tiago
--
Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo, referending to QT backend based KDE libraries.
Quonqueror, Qonsole...
Somehow these still don't sound right. If we use the T idea, I seriously doubt people would want to use amaroT.
I still think if we rename them, we should at least pick something generic until we come up with a better name for rebranding, at least for the development versions in svn whilst we work on new names. Then we can rename stuff as we go along toward the rebranded stable release, concentrating mainly on the main stuff.
I still like KDE Classic though. Perhaps we can see about doing a co-operative with the KDE4 devs? I'm not sure where the co-op would be (other than helping them "sanitize" their code and in adding in old features they still need (once we're strong in numbers and have a few more releases), but if they keep all their new "plasma" and such, I doubt the two projects would actually merge for a KDE5).
Kristofer, theres no posibvle that u said, please reaad about the 2 previosly mail from me, i explaint some importante issues about kde licences and GPL parts..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo,
referending
to QT backend based KDE libraries.
Quonqueror, Qonsole...
Somehow these still don't sound right. If we use the T idea, I seriously doubt people would want to use amaroT.
I still think if we rename them, we should at least pick something generic until we come up with a better name for rebranding, at least for the development versions in svn whilst we work on new names. Then we can rename stuff as we go along toward the rebranded stable release, concentrating mainly on the main stuff.
I still like KDE Classic though. Perhaps we can see about doing a co-operative with the KDE4 devs? I'm not sure where the co-op would be (other than helping them "sanitize" their code and in adding in old features they still need (once we're strong in numbers and have a few more releases), but if they keep all their new "plasma" and such, I doubt the two projects would actually merge for a KDE5).
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On 4 March 2011 10:50, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Kristofer, theres no posibvle that u said, please reaad about the 2 previosly mail from me, i explaint some importante issues about kde licences and GPL parts..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo, referending to QT backend based KDE libraries.
Quonqueror, Qonsole...
Somehow these still don't sound right. If we use the T idea, I seriously doubt people would want to use amaroT.
I still think if we rename them, we should at least pick something generic until we come up with a better name for rebranding, at least for the development versions in svn whilst we work on new names. Then we can rename stuff as we go along toward the rebranded stable release, concentrating mainly on the main stuff.
I still like KDE Classic though. Perhaps we can see about doing a co-operative with the KDE4 devs? I'm not sure where the co-op would be (other than helping them "sanitize" their code and in adding in old features they still need (once we're strong in numbers and have a few more releases), but if they keep all their new "plasma" and such, I doubt the two projects would actually merge for a KDE5).
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
-- Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO) http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com Cofundador de Venenux; http://shutendouji.net creador de massenkoh linux.
I haven't said anything on this thread until now, I was holding my judgement till both sides had been exposed.
Frankly I think this is quite pointless and would be a bad thing. It would show that the Trinity project had no backbone, if we tried to "reconcile" or whatever with KDE (ignoring all the licensing issues or whatever) It would impede our efforts
As for naming, Konsole isn't copyright, Konqueror isn't copyright, etc so we can keep the K scheme, it is familiar and easy.
Internally we need to continue rebranding and seperating it. Eventually we should become fully seperate from the KDE naming scheme, but the manpower required to do so is insane
Calvin Morrison
yes, konqueror and so, may conservate, but some artworks, and KDE name itseft are (R)..
only the parts under GPL licence could be use as it, please we need more read KDE licences.. theres some CC-3 artworks issues i think..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, calvin morrison mutantturkey@gmail.comwrote:
On 4 March 2011 10:50, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Kristofer, theres no posibvle that u said, please reaad about the 2 previosly mail from me, i explaint some importante issues about kde
licences
and GPL parts..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo, referending to QT backend based KDE libraries.
Quonqueror, Qonsole...
Somehow these still don't sound right. If we use the T idea, I seriously doubt people would want to use amaroT.
I still think if we rename them, we should at least pick something generic until we come up with a better name for rebranding, at least for the development versions in svn whilst we work on new names. Then we can rename stuff as we go along toward the rebranded stable release, concentrating mainly on the main stuff.
I still like KDE Classic though. Perhaps we can see about doing a co-operative with the KDE4 devs? I'm not sure where the co-op would be (other than helping them "sanitize" their code and in adding in old features they still need (once we're strong in numbers and have a few more releases), but if they keep all their new "plasma" and such, I doubt the two projects would actually merge for a KDE5).
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
-- Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO) http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com Cofundador de Venenux; http://shutendouji.net creador de massenkoh linux.
I haven't said anything on this thread until now, I was holding my judgement till both sides had been exposed.
Frankly I think this is quite pointless and would be a bad thing. It would show that the Trinity project had no backbone, if we tried to "reconcile" or whatever with KDE (ignoring all the licensing issues or whatever) It would impede our efforts
As for naming, Konsole isn't copyright, Konqueror isn't copyright, etc so we can keep the K scheme, it is familiar and easy.
Internally we need to continue rebranding and seperating it. Eventually we should become fully seperate from the KDE naming scheme, but the manpower required to do so is insane
Calvin Morrison
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On 4 March 2011 11:40, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
yes, konqueror and so, may conservate, but some artworks, and KDE name itseft are (R)..
only the parts under GPL licence could be use as it, please we need more read KDE licences.. theres some CC-3 artworks issues i think..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, calvin morrison mutantturkey@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 March 2011 10:50, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Kristofer, theres no posibvle that u said, please reaad about the 2 previosly mail from me, i explaint some importante issues about kde licences and GPL parts..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Kristopher Gamrat pikidalto@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo, referending to QT backend based KDE libraries.
Quonqueror, Qonsole...
Somehow these still don't sound right. If we use the T idea, I seriously doubt people would want to use amaroT.
I still think if we rename them, we should at least pick something generic until we come up with a better name for rebranding, at least for the development versions in svn whilst we work on new names. Then we can rename stuff as we go along toward the rebranded stable release, concentrating mainly on the main stuff.
I still like KDE Classic though. Perhaps we can see about doing a co-operative with the KDE4 devs? I'm not sure where the co-op would be (other than helping them "sanitize" their code and in adding in old features they still need (once we're strong in numbers and have a few more releases), but if they keep all their new "plasma" and such, I doubt the two projects would actually merge for a KDE5).
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
-- Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO) http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com Cofundador de Venenux; http://shutendouji.net creador de massenkoh linux.
I haven't said anything on this thread until now, I was holding my judgement till both sides had been exposed.
Frankly I think this is quite pointless and would be a bad thing. It would show that the Trinity project had no backbone, if we tried to "reconcile" or whatever with KDE (ignoring all the licensing issues or whatever) It would impede our efforts
As for naming, Konsole isn't copyright, Konqueror isn't copyright, etc so we can keep the K scheme, it is familiar and easy.
Internally we need to continue rebranding and seperating it. Eventually we should become fully seperate from the KDE naming scheme, but the manpower required to do so is insane
Calvin Morrison
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
-- Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO) http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com Cofundador de Venenux; http://shutendouji.net creador de massenkoh linux.
All,
We are going to replace the artwork, that takes time. Meanwhile, I doubt that KDE e.v will do anything, or even bother us during the transition to the new artwork.
Calvin Morrison
uff its a long effors...
hey Lonqueror, what about that ?
Linitry? jajaja
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:18 PM, calvin morrison mutantturkey@gmail.comwrote:
On 4 March 2011 11:40, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
yes, konqueror and so, may conservate, but some artworks, and KDE name itseft are (R)..
only the parts under GPL licence could be use as it, please we need more read KDE licences.. theres some CC-3 artworks issues i think..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:38 AM, calvin morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com
wrote:
On 4 March 2011 10:50, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com
wrote:
Kristofer, theres no posibvle that u said, please reaad about the 2 previosly mail from me, i explaint some importante issues about kde licences and GPL parts..
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Kristopher Gamrat <
pikidalto@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 7:16 PM, PICCORO McKAY Lenz mckaygerhard@gmail.com wrote:
Toqueror ????
O.o
i dont think so
maybe trinity for desktop name, and kfoo names change to qfoo, referending to QT backend based KDE libraries.
Quonqueror, Qonsole...
Somehow these still don't sound right. If we use the T idea, I seriously doubt people would want to use amaroT.
I still think if we rename them, we should at least pick something generic until we come up with a better name for rebranding, at least for the development versions in svn whilst we work on new names. Then we can rename stuff as we go along toward the rebranded stable release, concentrating mainly on the main stuff.
I still like KDE Classic though. Perhaps we can see about doing a co-operative with the KDE4 devs? I'm not sure where the co-op would
be
(other than helping them "sanitize" their code and in adding in old features they still need (once we're strong in numbers and have a few more releases), but if they keep all their new "plasma" and such, I doubt the two projects would actually merge for a KDE5).
-- Kris "Piki" Ark Linux Webmaster Trinity Desktop Environment Packager
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
-- Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO) http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com Cofundador de Venenux; http://shutendouji.net creador de massenkoh linux.
I haven't said anything on this thread until now, I was holding my judgement till both sides had been exposed.
Frankly I think this is quite pointless and would be a bad thing. It would show that the Trinity project had no backbone, if we tried to "reconcile" or whatever with KDE (ignoring all the licensing issues or whatever) It would impede our efforts
As for naming, Konsole isn't copyright, Konqueror isn't copyright, etc so we can keep the K scheme, it is familiar and easy.
Internally we need to continue rebranding and seperating it. Eventually we should become fully seperate from the KDE naming scheme, but the manpower required to do so is insane
Calvin Morrison
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
-- Lenz McKAY Gerardo (PICCORO) http://qgqlochekone.blogspot.com Cofundador de Venenux; http://shutendouji.net creador de massenkoh linux.
All,
We are going to replace the artwork, that takes time. Meanwhile, I doubt that KDE e.v will do anything, or even bother us during the transition to the new artwork.
Calvin Morrison
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
On Thursday 03 March 2011 21:21:50 Mike Bird wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
At some stage I would even like to see all the kfoo renamed to tfoo so that they can become first-class file-system citizens in mixed KDE/Trinity installations.
They can be renamed into still other names such as kcfoo for example. On the other hand, I think renaming all that stuff is a very difficult even if possible task. You would have not only change all the localization and filenames, but also much of hard-coded stuff and a lot of third-party software (of course if you do not want to drop compatibility with all that software).
On 03/03/2011 11:55 AM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during this transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
Tim
I hate using the worn out "win-win" phrase, but from kde.org's standpoint, I think that this project serves as an asset. It generates an overwhelming interest in kde where that interest would now be with Gnome or Fluxbox without Trinity.
I'm not advocating changing Trinity to KDE Classic by any stretch. The way I see it, is from the branding standpoint of something like:
KDE Classic -> The Trinity Desktop
or
Trinity Desktop (KDE3 - next generation)
I haven't even thought through the formalities yet, but I don't think we need a rebranding of Trinity at all. Honestly, I can't see anyone's ox getting gored by the fact that there is still kde3 artwork in Trinity.. it's a fork, it's gpl, we include a license, that's the way it works...
If there are any concerns on the Trinity side, then they need to be identified and considered, and then if warranted, agreements sought to put the issues to rest, if any, so everybody is happy :)
I think Trinity is well known enough in the community that it can pretty much stand on its own as a name. If there is an arrangement that can benefit Trinity as well as kde, then that is something that helps everyone out and can easily be pursued.
uff, well...
Well, this means that as stated by Tim, and which requires the licensing of KDE!, only the artworks are licensed under a permit like, the rest is about GPL, BSD or MIT. This means that the desktop of the Trinity can be called as it want, except KDE maibe, since KDE noticed that has right next one an "(R)" as very small caracter je je ... and the artworks must be changed, since the 3 Series are CC-3. as stated in the verse 10 of the KDE Public License.
CITE: KDE licence extrac:
10. Standalone media files such as images may be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . This does not apply to icons or anything which is likely to be mixed with content under our normal (GPL etc) licences.
Ideally, that would be nice if kde adopted as official folk project, along with kde4, kde3 as Trinity fact desktop (because of series 3) and kde4 as plasma desktop or someting. It would be too much that dream, it would be that the join forces with Nokia & mocosoft are not a reality, and sun will back and get java again? but the reality is hardes, and now must change the artowrks of trinity, cos there are under CC-3 licence.
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM, David C. Rankin < drankinatty@suddenlinkmail.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2011 11:55 AM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
It's quite simple really. We have no legal right to use the trademark "KDE" for anything. KDE e.V. has graciously cut us some slack during
this
transitional period, but they could easily demand full removal of all of their trademarks at any time (e.g. if this project starts actually competing with KDE4 for some reason).
Tim
I hate using the worn out "win-win" phrase, but from kde.org's standpoint, I think that this project serves as an asset. It generates an overwhelming interest in kde where that interest would now be with Gnome or Fluxbox without Trinity.
I'm not advocating changing Trinity to KDE Classic by any stretch. The way I see it, is from the branding standpoint of something like:
KDE Classic -> The Trinity Desktop
or
Trinity Desktop (KDE3 - next generation)
I haven't even thought through the formalities yet, but I don't think we need a rebranding of Trinity at all. Honestly, I can't see anyone's ox getting gored by the fact that there is still kde3 artwork in Trinity.. it's a fork, it's gpl, we include a license, that's the way it works...
If there are any concerns on the Trinity side, then they need to be identified and considered, and then if warranted, agreements sought to put the issues to rest, if any, so everybody is happy :)
I think Trinity is well known enough in the community that it can pretty much stand on its own as a name. If there is an arrangement that can benefit Trinity as well as kde, then that is something that helps everyone out and can easily be pursued.
-- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-devel-unsubscribe@lists.pearsoncomputing.net For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-devel-help@lists.pearsoncomputing.net Read list messsages on the Web archive: http://trinity-devel.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
So much energy expended about app names. This stuff is all GPL. The KDE people do not own the names. Historically, names have been changed simply as a point of distinction, courtesy, and respect. A name change indicates a parting of ways regardless of the reasons.
I suspect there are people who object to the Trinity name. The word means three, but there are obvious religious under tones to the name that people might object. Two-thirds of the people on this planet do not observe the Christian religion. People are free to choose their religion as much as their software, but if a software name alienates people in such a manner, then the name hinders progress rather than helps.
I never hated but never cared for the "K" prefix to all the app names. I won't vote to change them all to "T" either. I prefer simple human readable names with no cute twists. I see nothing wrong with Console, Mixer, Compare, Alarm, Clipboard, etc. Simple and straightforward. Some names should be left as is, such as Konqueror or Kate.
Considering the challenge of changing all names, just leave them all as is. After all these years there is a well known familiarity with the existing names. Why confuse end users?
Let sleeping dogs lie.
Darrell
On Fri March 4 2011 09:51:22 Darrell Anderson wrote:
Considering the challenge of changing all names, just leave them all as is. After all these years there is a well known familiarity with the existing names. Why confuse end users?
The downside of the effort involved and the slight confusion to any end users who access Trinity programs through the command line can be weighed against the advantage of Trinity programs becoming first class file-system citizens fully co-installable with KDE and amenable to inclusion in distros such as Debian.
In any event it is not urgent, just a possible long-term goal.
--Mike Bird
On Friday 04 March 2011 21:42:05 Mike Bird wrote:
Considering the challenge of changing all names, just leave them all as is. After all these years there is a well known familiarity with the existing names. Why confuse end users?
The downside of the effort involved and the slight confusion to any end users who access Trinity programs through the command line can be weighed against the advantage of Trinity programs becoming first class file-system citizens fully co-installable with KDE and amenable to inclusion in distros such as Debian.
Debian just searches for pretexts why not to include Trinity. In OpenSUSE 11.0 KDE3 was included along with KDE4, with no problems. On modern OpenSUSE releases KDE3 also can be installed along KDE4.
In any event it is not urgent, just a possible long-term goal.
As I already said, one can pick any other name as well, for example, kconsole, kconqueror in the case of KDE Classic (looks better than tonsole, tonqueror).
On Friday 04 March 2011 20:51:22 Darrell Anderson wrote:
I suspect there are people who object to the Trinity name. The word means three, but there are obvious religious under tones to the name that people might object. Two-thirds of the people on this planet do not observe the Christian religion. People are free to choose their religion as much as their software, but if a software name alienates people in such a manner, then the name hinders progress rather than helps.
Actually for me the word "Trinity" reminds the first detonated atomic bomb device. It was called the "Trinity project". This may bear some meaning: Trinity is a "secret project" that should blast KDE4 (at least in wishes).
On the other hand, "thinity" indeed means something connected to number 3: Qt3, KDE3. One can reasonably suppose there will be the 4th version of Trinity and that it will be eventually ported to Qt4. The name then will become outdated, should it then be renamed "Quartity"?
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Ilya Chernykh neptunia@mail.ru wrote:
On the other hand, "thinity" indeed means something connected to number 3: Qt3, KDE3. One can reasonably suppose there will be the 4th version of Trinity and that it will be eventually ported to Qt4. The name then will become outdated, should it then be renamed "Quartity"?
It's still a continuation of KDE3. If we rename it to Quartitiy because of Qt4, we'd have to rename it again (Petriaty?) when Qt5 comes out. That's the whole point of TQt -- make it easier to port from one version of Qt to another without any changes to the base code -- only the library (tqtinterface) needs updating, while the rest of the code doesn't.
Though QDE may not be a bad idea -- it may be generic, but Qt Desktop Environment could be satisfactory if we want to avoid wars with KDE. Quenqueror could still work with the same pronounciation though be a bit confusing when people see the Q, but we'd still have some naming issues elsewhere if we change the app names.
Whatever we do, we need to make clear that we are a continuation of KDE3 by a different development team. That way, people know that their KDE3 apps should work with a little bit of code change for TQt (which will need some clear documentation when it's completed), but is still largely compatible.
On Friday 04 March 2011 22:18:46 Kristopher Gamrat wrote:
On the other hand, "thinity" indeed means something connected to number 3: Qt3, KDE3. One can reasonably suppose there will be the 4th version of Trinity and that it will be eventually ported to Qt4. The name then will become outdated, should it then be renamed "Quartity"?
It's still a continuation of KDE3. If we rename it to Quartitiy because of Qt4, we'd have to rename it again (Petriaty?) when Qt5 comes out. That's the whole point of TQt -- make it easier to port from one version of Qt to another without any changes to the base code -- only the library (tqtinterface) needs updating, while the rest of the code doesn't.
Though QDE may not be a bad idea -- it may be generic, but Qt Desktop Environment could be satisfactory if we want to avoid wars with KDE.
I think this can be confused with Qtopia DE by Trolltech. http://www.owendia.com/forum/images/openpma-NG-qtopia.png And Qt is also obviously a registered trade mark.
Quenqueror could still work with the same pronounciation though be a bit confusing when people see the Q, but we'd still have some naming issues elsewhere if we change the app names.
Whatever we do, we need to make clear that we are a continuation of KDE3 by a different development team. That way, people know that their KDE3 apps should work with a little bit of code change for TQt (which will need some clear documentation when it's completed), but is still largely compatible.
Indeed.
On Friday 04 March 2011 22:18:46 Kristopher Gamrat wrote:
On the other hand, "thinity" indeed means something connected to
number
3: Qt3, KDE3. One can reasonably suppose there will be the 4th version
of
Trinity and that it will be eventually ported to Qt4. The name then
will
become outdated, should it then be renamed "Quartity"?
It's still a continuation of KDE3. If we rename it to Quartitiy because of Qt4, we'd have to rename it again (Petriaty?) when Qt5 comes out. That's the whole point of TQt -- make it easier to port from one version of Qt to another without any changes to the base code -- only the library (tqtinterface) needs updating, while the rest of the code doesn't.
Though QDE may not be a bad idea -- it may be generic, but Qt Desktop Environment could be satisfactory if we want to avoid wars with KDE.
I think this can be confused with Qtopia DE by Trolltech. http://www.owendia.com/forum/images/openpma-NG-qtopia.png And Qt is also obviously a registered trade mark.
Quenqueror could still work with the same pronounciation though be a bit confusing when people see the Q, but we'd still have some naming issues elsewhere if we change the app names.
Whatever we do, we need to make clear that we are a continuation of KDE3 by a different development team. That way, people know that their KDE3 apps should work with a little bit of code change for TQt (which will need some clear documentation when it's completed), but is still largely compatible.
Indeed.
OK guys, here's my $0.02.
We have too many bugs in the bugtracker as it is; this indicates that manpower is severely limited. KDE e.V. has shown to be very reasonable thus far, and they have actually pulled some KDE4 fixes from the Trinity branch, so I don't think there will be any legal problems with images, etc. However, that does not mean we should keep using the trademark "KDE" throughout the desktop environment, as it will lead to confusion and (rightfully) anger KDE e.V. very quickly. I believe the renaming to Trinity, as well as the removal of the "K" icon (it is now a "T" icon as you may already know) is sufficient at this time. So long as Trinity remains a distinct piece of software with a different name than "KDE" I do not forsee any issues, even if some icons are shared between the old KDE3 releases and Trinity. The point is we are not grabbing the newest Oxygen iconsets and artwork and purposefully making a head-to-head run against KDE4 on the same features, look+feel, etc., and KDE e.V. knows that.
I say keep the "k" application naming for the older applications (konsole, etc.) for legacy reasons, but for new applications either work the "t" into the application name or leave the name generic. Even better, come up with a catchy name that is NOT tied to the DE--personally I always thought the "k" in the application names was somewhat tacky and childish.
Tim
On 03/04/2011 02:14 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
OK guys, here's my $0.02.
We have too many bugs in the bugtracker as it is; this indicates that manpower is severely limited. KDE e.V. has shown to be very reasonable thus far, and they have actually pulled some KDE4 fixes from the Trinity branch, so I don't think there will be any legal problems with images, etc. However, that does not mean we should keep using the trademark "KDE" throughout the desktop environment, as it will lead to confusion and (rightfully) anger KDE e.V. very quickly. I believe the renaming to Trinity, as well as the removal of the "K" icon (it is now a "T" icon as you may already know) is sufficient at this time. So long as Trinity remains a distinct piece of software with a different name than "KDE" I do not forsee any issues, even if some icons are shared between the old KDE3 releases and Trinity. The point is we are not grabbing the newest Oxygen iconsets and artwork and purposefully making a head-to-head run against KDE4 on the same features, look+feel, etc., and KDE e.V. knows that.
I say keep the "k" application naming for the older applications (konsole, etc.) for legacy reasons, but for new applications either work the "t" into the application name or leave the name generic. Even better, come up with a catchy name that is NOT tied to the DE--personally I always thought the "k" in the application names was somewhat tacky and childish.
Tim
+1
Although I wouldn't go renaming apps without a very good reason -- or -- at least wait until a name change is implemented for the whole sh-bang.
You talk about confusion:
"What is kview called now?" "Is it truler or has that not moved yet?" "Where did kcolorchooser go?" "Who is the knucklehead that came up with tcchooser?"
You get the drift :)
-
calvin morrison -
Darrell Anderson -
David C. Rankin -
Ilya Chernykh -
Kristopher Gamrat -
Mike Bird -
PICCORO McKAY Lenz -
Serghei Amelian -
Tiago Marques -
Timothy Pearson