To answer this one, I'll put on my MBA hat for a second [ducking]
There are pros and cons to sticking with the aD association.
Using ArsDigita name serves three purposes --
1) pays homage to the original arsdigita code
2) enhances name recognition for the OpenACS project
3) causes transference of the "brand equity" encapsulated in the ArsDigita name to the OpenACS project. That is, the feelings -- both positive and negative -- that people ascribe to the word ArsDigita are shifted to OpenACS. For better or worse.
If memory serves, the project was originally called acs/pg, then OpenACS. I believe the project name was originally intended to be functional, addressing issue #1 above -- it was simply designed to tell people "this is an adaptation of arsdigita code, running on an open-source platform". As a result of this name choice, issues #2 & #3 came along for the ride.
Conditions today are somewhat different.
Minor insurrections aside, ArsDigita has effectively abandoned the old Tcl-based code, and moved on to a new architecture. Don and Ben have effectively taken the code & run with it (what do you call a fork with 1 prong?), engineering many new features like the query dispatcher.
Thus, it is no longer simply a knock-off of ACS. (thus issue #1, paying tribute to aD, is perhaps less relevant to the project today.)
Furthermore, one could argue that the OpenACS has gained a similar, if not greater popularity than, ACS. [just by examination of download statistics, you'd see that they are in the same ballpark.] Thus, issue #2, enhancing recognition, is not as great.
Finally, issue #3 -- brand equity. I'll leave it to the individuals who comprise this community to decide whether or not this affiliation is something that they deem positive and helpful to the project going forward.
These are the issues as I see them.
[mba hat off, ducking ceased.]
