Maybe dumb question but should forks be completely renamed? Is prefixing enough?
@weex oh, btw prefixing might be okay i.e. 'mymastodon', but it may land you in hot water if there's trademarks etc.
(There's a trademark dispute surrounding PostgreSQL now)
@humanetech Even with the shades of grey, that's quite clear. Local-only posts are in and I don't think ever going in upstream so that would point toward a name change.
@weex I guess the prefix is good enough as long as the general feel is similar to upstream. Glitch-soc has the same look and feel as vanilla Mastodon, its various extra features are noticeable to those who are constanty using it, but on first glance it's Mastodon.
@lightone Thanks for bringing up Glitch-soc. They use a concept of flavors in their codebase which seems fitting.
There's not much of a different flavor for this fork at the moment but I guess it'll become obvious that a new name is in order should that time come.
@weex I'd say you only keep the name if the fork exists solely for the sake of furthering upstream.
As soon as you intend to go a completely independent direction you should rename. E.g. gogs --> gitea.
There are some shades of grey. For instance a couple of fedi projects forked OAuth2 libs to add some commits that were required but not likely to be merged in upstream soon. They kept original name. Maybe they'd ditch the fork again once upstream fulfills their need.