Project identification & naming

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

	Evening everyone!

	Working on my dp2mp-move branch just now I came up with some  
questions regarding our naming as a project, as there are still some  
references to darwinports, opendarwin and, eeehhhmmm, Apple in key  
parts of our sources, and I'm not too sure what we should do.

	My biggest question is with respect to the "com.apple.<target>"  
naming we still use to identify each of the installation stages: can  
we move that to something more consistent like  
"org.macports.<stage>"? Note that I didn't ask "should we" just  
there, simply because a full migration to the new name is the very  
objective of the branch, so that's a given. I'm asking: can we? are  
there any legal ramifications of any sort if we do, given that it was  
Apple who first started the project? Please bear with me if these  
seem like silly questions, not only am I not a lawyer but also I  
don't live in the US, so I'm not at all acquainted with pertinent  
legal procedures, if any. Any other roadblocks to moving that to our  
own naming? (other than bugs that will arise, which I'll look after  
as I work on the branch).

	On the same tune, I'm also wondering about our identification: can  
we call ourselves a "working group"? a "vendor"? a "distributor"?  
none? all? For an example of what I'm referring to, check out the  
differences between the base/src/package1.0/portrpmpackage.tcl file  
in trunk and in the dp2mp-move branch:

trunk:
(Line No. 159)%define distribution DarwinPorts
(Line No. 160)%define vendor OpenDarwin

branch:
(Line No. 159)%define distribution MacPorts
(Line No. 160)%define vendor MacPorts


	It would be good to get a clear definition of what we are and  
aren't, in order to call ourselves consistently. As another example,  
our base/portmgr/License.html file (shipped with our dmg's) claims in  
its header (per my own not too educated addition of our name):

Copyright (c) 2002 - 2003 Apple Computer, Inc.
Copyright (c) 2004 - 2007 MacPorts
All rights reserved.

	Is that correct? incorrect? incomplete? Putting that same  
(corrected) info in our front web page would also be a good idea, I'm  
figuring (other than the incredible number of cleanups it needs, I  
think that's an important one).

	Thanks for the help! Regards,...


-jmpp