[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: CGI.lua - A native CGI Interface
- From: Steve Litt <slitt@...>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:59:29 -0500
On Wednesday 23 February 2011 11:33:10 Sebastien Lai wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Steve Litt
> > On Wednesday 23 February 2011 11:07:52 Regular Joe wrote:
> > > On a second though I suppose so, but renaming would be trivial, if
> > > really and absolutely necessary.... Don't get me wrong, I really like
> > > the Keplerproject, but CGILua is really much more like the wsgi module
> > > for Python, than a 'real' CGI Interface.
> > Absolutely necessary is a relative thing. I doubt you'll be sued for a
> > trademark violation, but as far as the goodwill of the community, let me
> > tell
> > you a story.
> > I created, announced and made available on the web a free software
> > project called VimOutliner. A few weeks later, a guy who had
> > corresponded with me after seeing VimOutliner created, announced and
> > made available a similar software called (drum roll please) "The Vim
> > Outliner".
> > That was almost ten years ago, and to this day people are still confusing
> > the
> > two. Instead of comparing and contrasting the two softwares, to this day
> > bloggers are *confusing* the two.
> > I was not amused. Neither were the other VimOutliner developers and
> > users.
> > So if you'd prefer that ten years from now someone isn't writing
> > something similar about you, you might want to change your software's
> > name so it doesn't
> > cause confusion.
> I see what you mean, but again, the CGILua module from the Kepler Project
> is much more like the wsgi module from Python, than an actual CGI
Yeah, the "The Vim Outliner" guy also had a bunch of reasons, many legitimate,
why his should be the real one, or at least the better one. That did nothing
to change the fact that he created confusion with an existing project. It also
did nothing to change the fact that VimOutliner got the developers and the
> Technically speaking, KP would be the one who should change the name, as
> it's just plainly misleading...
Really? A going-concern, well known project should change their name? I just
don't buy that.
> then again, they came first.
And here's the bottom line. Regular Joe's promising project has already
garnered many more boo's than yea's just because his project name caused
confusion with a well established project. If his priority is having his
project used, documented, and helped, his logical next step is to rename is
days or weeks old project to something that causes no confusion with anything.
Call it "BestWebApp" or "CloudConstructor" or "CGI-Genie, Lua edition" for all
I care, but name it something unconfusing and move on with making it a useful,
supported and communitized tool.
Recession Relief Package