Were you trying to be a jerk or somehow helpful with your first sentence?
I was responding to the lists, the message was originally sent to.
I'm well aware there are projects out there with moniker "Open" in the
front. The individual asking about this is asking about the specific
question of naming his OpenBSD ksh port OpenKSH. It seems to me there
is no need to further muddy the waters (as you aptly point out are
already dirty) with such a name.
Darren Spruell wrote:
On 3/4/07, John Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The name might mislead some people. The other Open[Project_Name]
"products" are ground-up rewrites or thoroughly audited code sharing
common themes such as security/stability/efficiency, freeness, and
flexibility. -just my 2 cents.
Thanks for top posting. </sarcasm>
The prefix Open* isn't exclusive to OpenBSD, so if there is confusion
they've been dealing with it for a long time. Many other software
projects exist out there with the term open in front of them, and few
(none?) of them have any of the same attention to the themes you
mention.
DS
Tom McLaughlin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sometime ago I created a FreeBSD port for OpenBSD's pdksh because of
> some annoyance in our pdksh port I can't even remember today. I simply
> named the port openksh since it sounded fitting and threw it on my home
> page with a short blurb and links to the port and distfile. Recently
> someone asked me if I would commit it to our ports tree. Before I do
> so, does anyone from OpenBSD prefer I change the name? I don't know if
> any developers already have the idea floating around.
>
> Thanks,
> tom
>
> link: http://people.freebsd.org/~tmclaugh/files/openksh/
