And I'm criticizing their priorities, which I can do -- especially if you choose to be in the realm of GNU and open source.
I understand their "rights," it is absolutely their choice. But...
It has been this way for a long time, but what they don't understand is they could very likely be doing greater good to stick it to, e.g. Adobe with just a little bit of humbling, which would buy a whole lot more popularity and acceptance.
Of course you can offer (constructive) criticism. But raising the same thing every time GIMP comes up goes well beyond that and is just disruptive. You need to accept that your criticism has been heard, and that it has been rejected.
And I actually agree a different name would be in the project's best interests. But I also accept that reasonable people can disagree, and that I'm not the one maintaining GIMP.
That's an incredibly ridiculous sentiment; you're only allowed to express an opinion once? I absolutely fail to see the value in such a norm; sometimes good ideas need repetition.
Free speech, et al, means I'm absolutely allowed to be annoying if I think it's worth it.
I did not say "you're only allowed to express an opinion once".
But please, show me a project you worked on, and I will show up to forcibly demand a change you don't want every single time the project comes up. And I will guarantee you that very quickly you will find it exceedingly tiring.
I think my problem with your analysis here is that it's like "a personal project."
It's not. It's GNU software. And to me -- choosing to use a license like that is something like taking up a mantle of freedom. You're part of something bigger, and I can't imagine that wouldn't include discussing out loud what direction the software should take.
I think you are in a very small minority. I've never encountered anyone balking at the name, even in educational settings.
Your interpretation -- which you didn't even specify! Many folks won't even know what you're talking about! -- is not the default in my experience. I usually think along the lines of "lame".
In other words, your perspective is the one that seems childish to me.
GIMP is known to be a term for something or someone that has less abilities. Whether you go with "it makes it sound like bad software," or the more recent and reasonable "it's an ableist slur;" outside of this circle, yes there is much balking.
And while I also do bristle a little bit at the general thing of "lets change the name because someones offended," I also understand that it's always a weighing test.
And here, given Adobe's traditionally damn near absolute chokehold on this space, I absolutely believe that, had they changed it a long time ago -- we could all be in a better place here.
