> > Last time we discussed renaming, it was clear a name change would get us > kicked out of the archive and we'd have to be a derivative, not an Ubuntu > flavor. I'm not aware of any reason to think that's changed and looking at > the > Mint situation re licensing something we'd really like to avoid. >
I think that should be re-evaluated / discussed with the relevant councils as and when we decide to ship Plasma Next and KF 5 as the default ISO. > Even if that weren't an issue, I'm against rebranding. It doesn't matter what > we call it, as long as we're part of the Ubuntu project, we'll get some of > whatever weirdness Canonical does to the Ubuntu desktop stuck on us. > > The brand is well established and unlike 4 or 5 years ago, seems to be a > pretty good one. Rebranding seems to me like a great was to vanish into > irrelevance. > I'm not saying that we should immediately dissolve the Kubuntu brand, instead, create a new brand around Frameworks and PW2 by delivering a ISO not called Kubuntu. This also has the added benefit of not demolishing the Kubuntu brand to what we had 4-5 years back *if* there are grave bugs in Plasma Next. Once we come out with Awesome OS, we just keep iterating and improving Awesome OS to the same quality as Kubuntu, and then it should be a simple switch out of replacing Kubuntu with Awesome OS. Cheers Rohan Garg -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-council More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
