DIYEFI.org Forum

I'm unhappy with way that projects are being named. This thread is to outline the problem and discuss it until we have a good solution.

Some time ago Aaron started work on a tuning application and specifically asked me for permission to call it freeems-tuner, I said yes. I think that was the right way to approach it from his side and also that my decision was right as that is the primary purpose of his app - a partner for the firmware.

When I labeled my FreeEMS firmware as FreeEMS vanilla the intent was to allow room for other 9s12xdp512 based variants to co-exist without confusion. I expect that at some point someone will hack my firmware to do things that I don't want in the base code as opposed to just adding extra features - those should get their own similar names (freeems-variationname).

I believe that it is a very bad thing if the name FreeEMS gets muddied and becomes ambiguous and meaningless. What we certainly do NOT want is the situation that MS now has with no one understanding which one does what and what they are all called. It is common for someone to call their ms a ms2 when its a ms1 on a version 2.2 board. bad news. It is worse than that however as their are other projects left right and centre all called megasquirt. not good for a consumer or noob.

For a start I think it is best if only projects that are 9s12xdp512 based use "FreeEMS" at all. Mark, please think up a new name for the 5554 based project to avoid future confusion as that will basically ruin it for both projects. This is not a toys out of cot thing, it is a practical thing where the ambiguity involved will be damaging to both projects. Furthermore, the 5554 project, if it ever makes it into the flesh, will have absolutely no resemblance in code OR hardware to FreeEMS itself.

Secondly, the boards that Jared has designed need better names too. We need a comprehensive naming strategy for the long haul and we need it up front before the bad practices take root.

I'm not sure what the best approach is, hence the thread to discuss it.

I think the *FreeEMS* firmware should be along the lines of freeems-<uniquename> and this goes for mine too - I claimed vanilla.

I think the boards should get names too, possibly code names or just ordinary names. Each board design will have various versions/revisions so the ms board version number system where it is totally different is a plain bad idea.

FreeEMS-Jared perhaps? Or anything else you come up with and like. I don't like your current numbering scheme though, it's prone to being a pain later IMO.

I'm considering registering the trademarks as mozilla did with firefox to keep control of the naming and keep it clean and tidy. For now though, please just consider FreeEMS and GNUECU reserved by me for the original projects. That is not to say I don't want another project sprouting up, but it is to say that it should be named uniquely.

Lastly, and somewhat unrelated, the threads on firmware for the 5554 project are in the software section, I will move them as soon as Mark acknowledges having read this sentence.

This has been hastily written as I'm short on time. Please discuss and we can take some positive actions in the near future to rectify and remedy the situations that need it once consensus is reached.

Fred.

Are you sure you want to register the trademarks after all the arguing about Firefox and Debian / free software... ?

Maybe name space the hardware names

e.g.
Firmware:
FreeEMS-Vanilla
FreeEMS-Motorbike

Hardware:
FreeEMS-Board-JaredIsAwesome
FreeEMS-Board-Minimalistic

Just ideas..

I definitely don't *want* to, but I might anyway.

The problems between debian and firefox were similar to some we may face but involved a different license term setup as well. I would also be upset if someone destabilised my code and distributed it as something that was highly linked to my name. This sort of thing could give me/mozilla a bad name that it does not deserve. I don't think that's a problem the way I propose it though. If everyone suffixes their variant with FreeEMS-Motorbike like names then it's fine and obvious that it's from someone else.

The issue we could face is a situation like the following :

Microsoft starts distributing IE, with code, labeled and badged as firefox. Clearly this would get firefox a bad rep and is actually totally unrelated to firefox.

The namespace idea is one I was tossing over. Effectively my code is called "Vanilla" which is fine by me. In full it's written FreeEMS-Vanilla which is clear. The issue is that we have (at least) three aspects :

firmware
hardware
complete solution

the latter is some sort of FreeEMS and the former each have names. I imagine we should just name the two parts and let people say something like "I have a vanilla 1.32.2/jared 1.43 freeems setup, what have you got?"

Thoughts?

Fred.

It would be nice to have a naming convention that immediately shows if the variant is firmware or hardware. If I see vanilla or jared by themselves and I missed some posts, I don't know if you're talking about firmware or hardware. Of course the context should make it obvious sooner or later but still would be good to know right away.

Jean

Fred wrote:
Mark, please think up a new name for the 5554 based project to avoid future confusion as that will basically ruin it for both projects.

Sorry, I thought using the same name prefix would prevent diluting and dividing searches on the subject. I have registered "openecu.info" and will see what I can do about putting a wiki up tomorrow that will be for the 5554 project. And I'll add a links over to FreeEMS and DiyEFI

Lastly, and somewhat unrelated, the threads on firmware for the 5554 project are in the software section, I will move them as soon as Mark acknowledges having read this sentence.

Sorry, I'm not sure what I was thinking, of course move them to wherever they belong and I will be more careful in the future. Do you want me to keep the 5554 project talk on my user's rided thread or something like that so it's out of the way and not confusing anyone?

Fred,
On my 1+hour drive to work this morning is occurred to me that you already gave my project the correct name – 5554

The only naming convention that can work long term needs to clearly define the hardware. I think the best way to do that is put the processor in the name. I personally think all current and future open source ecu projects should be kept together and use the name FrreeEMS as both a nod to you and a way to collect stuff together, but that is entirely your call.

Hardware is=FreeEMS-processor-Version

Firmware = freeEMS-processor-hardware version-firmware version

Turning software = FreeEMS-processor-hardware version-firmware version-turner version.

This leads to long official names, but I don’t see another way that will actually solve all the problems. The FreeEMS prefix is optional but the rest of the name probably has to be of this format.

I don't have time to argue the naming stuff, however the nod to me part is not required as I just resurrected what once existed and what mega$quirt took away from us gradually over the years.

More later.

Fred wrote:I don't have time to argue the naming stuff, however the nod to me part is not required as I just resurrected what once existed and what mega$quirt took away from us gradually over the years.

More later.

please don't take what I said as arguing, the prefix part FreeEMS, or OpenECU, or DiYEFI,or Bob, or whatever doesn’t matter long term as it will require prefixes or suffixes to fully clarify it anyway.

You pointed out the main problem with any open design----people do what they want an stuff gets all mixed up. If the Processor and processor board design are in the official name and the names of the files then when the processor is upgraded or changed in the future it remains obvious which firmware and turner versions follow.

From a branding standpoint marketing type normally like to have the name refer to the product family in as broad of terms as possible. They do this because it improves brand recognition by increasing the number of people who refer to the product they want by that name. That was all I was thinking with the –plus suffix, which in hide site was a poor choice.

I think a convention similar to what I suggested (with or without the FreeEMS prefix) is what will be required long term…..for today I will start referring to my project as 5554 and stop using the FreeEMS prefix unless told otherwise.

Fred wrote:I'm unhappy with way that projects are being named. This thread is to outline the problem and discuss it until we have a good solution.

Eh shed color as far as I'm concerned. After all what kind of a dumb name is Microsoft. I think names are often irrelevant of what the software does. Blender, Mozilla, ect the don't give you a description in the name, but I'd be you all know what they are. Some like wireshark are descriptive, but eh.

Jared, I think you have got the wrong idea.

It's not the name so much, as the "brand". It's like having two versions of Firefox, both browsers, but each designed for different hardware and with unique code bases. Why call them both Firefox?