On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 14:51, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > Trust me, you can't call it Bluecurve. ;-) > > > > I'm hoping to make a release with a "configure --with-name=Wonderland" > > type of feature. I'm not sure I can convince automake to do this, but > > worth a try. Otherwise you probably have to do "make install" and then > > a lot of mv/sed action as part of the packaging. I could actually put > > the mv/sed action in our spec file and leave the tarball name as > > "Wonderland" instead of "Bluecurve" > > So, it's really going to be a pain to have some people's machines calling > this theme "Bluecurve" and others calling it "Wonderland". As an independent > theme author, how can I base an enhanced theme on it reliably? > > It looks like any theme I write based on Wonderland will break for Red Hat > users, so *they* will be the second class citizens in this instance. It may > get to a point that Red Hat users will install Wonderland just to be > compatible with everyone else. > > I grok the issues, and I accept Red Hat's use of trademarks, but this > particular use does create a (small) world of pain... and I can't see a > technical solution on the horizon.
Hmm, well, no derivative can be called BlueCurve; only the single original theme can be called BlueCurve. I don't really see where it could get confusing; unless you mean theme engines? In that case, one can have an engine called bluecurve and an engine called wonderland installed at the same time; just so long as authors only make themes that use the wonderland engine, it should be good, no? > > - Jeff -- Sean Middleditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
