Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
The company’s reason is “brand protection”:
The last part of that reply is very wrong.
The article also has a reply from Peter Hutterer, a “senior software engineer at Red Hat and a maintainer of Linux’s core input device handling infrastructure since decades”, which is worth reading.
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.
I think I agree with everything you said. It seems fair to rename the package to be more universal. I didn’t look into this too far but I don’t think Wacom is forcing their name into the driver, I think it’s just more difficult to change everywhere than it might seem.
It makes me only look at Wacom, because of their strong Linux support, so probably not great for the other companies.