Changing names of Open source software?

[ttu_soko]

Do open source softwares allow you to change the actual names of the software? example: "Audacity" open source audio program, changin the name to "Videocity"

 

[iNod]

Nope. This would be classified as calling your own. The owner named it and that is the name.

Sorry.

iNod.

 

[sjp]

I'm interested in what context you'd like to rename it because I'm not sure how that would make any sense.

Anyway, I think it would be fine. You fork the project and just don't change anything but the name. It's extremely lame though, don't do it.

 

[primacomputer]

Renaming something isn't the same as claiming ownership. As sjp has said you can fork the project, at which point it is a good idea to change the name to avoid confusion. I agree that doing this to just have a new name is extremely lame but it's not disallowed.

Forking and renaming, and then adding features later would be fine. Technically this is what you would do anyway because you need two different names for the two projects in your project directory.

But bear in mind that you will have to include the original copyright notice and that all your changes will have to be GPLd.

There's also nothing wrong with packaging a number of projects into a single package and distributing that under a different name/brand. This is, after all, what every Linux distro in the world actually is

 

[ttu_soko]

Nope. This would be classified as calling your own. The owner named it and that is the name.

Sorry.

iNod.

Open source software technically does not have an "owner", its open to everyone and no one "owns" it. I believe this is in the GPL.


From what I understand the GPL allows anyone to sell open source software for commercial profit if they wish, albeit they include the GPL with the software as well. So in order to sell a open source software, it would be wise to change the name, am I on track?

 

[primacomputer]

Open source software has an “owner”. There must be a copyright holder in order to license software. Otherwise the software would be public domain. People release software under the GPL, as opposed to public domain, specifically so that a license can be enforced.

The main purpose of this license is to ensure that the code remains free If this were not the case you could have some company take the work of a GPL product, develop it further into a proprietary system and sell it without making their source code available. In short they would be parasites, only leaching and not contributing.

The GPL guarantees your right to sell the software. It also guarantees everyone else's right to get the source code for free. This may seem like a contradiction in terms but when you dig into it it's not. Contrary to popular belief open source is not about ensuring that everyone receives software free of cost. It's about ensuring that everyone has access to the source code, the right to make changes, and that everyone else has access to those changes.

The GPL places very few restrictions on what you can do with software. It's about three pages long. If you're thinking about doing anything with GPLd software it's worth a read and can be found here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html