Not to dunk on his achievements, but his argument is basically that it doesn’t matter because the end user doesn’t see any libwacom branding.
However, when they upgrade their package, it will show the Wacom name. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to rename the project to something which is more descriptive, especially since it contains way more than Wacom code.
I can understand both sides. I also think that you shouldn’t bow to corporate interests in general, for example to marketing departments of any company.
However by keeping the Wacom name you’re basically giving them special treatment just because they came first. Vendor neutral projects should be named vendor-neutrally, IMHO.
Not to dunk on his achievements, but his argument is basically that it doesn’t matter because the end user doesn’t see any libwacom branding.
However, when they upgrade their package, it will show the Wacom name. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to rename the project to something which is more descriptive, especially since it contains way more than Wacom code.
I can understand both sides. I also think that you shouldn’t bow to corporate interests in general, for example to marketing departments of any company.
However by keeping the Wacom name you’re basically giving them special treatment just because they came first. Vendor neutral projects should be named vendor-neutrally, IMHO.