Going back to Malte's question.
From the marketing perspective I am not sure if using aD name is a bad thing. They are a commercial venture, worth millions, with partners like Oracle and clients like the World Bank. When we talk to a client all aD marketing investment comes for free. The code might be different but the idea and the origins are the same. I think is a good idea to keep these as assets. If they use openACS "brand recognition" it is even better, we are not competing with ACS java. If a client makes a shortlist he will be chosing between between open source or not open source. We want aD AND openACS to be in their short list.
Developers might be annoyed because aD is using Java instead of Tcl, but the truth is that many companies might not feel this way...
About changing the code naming ... I agree with Todd, maintaining the history is a good idea. For new modules though, it might make sense to have new naming and standard rules.
In spanish we have a phrase that says something like "Don't jump into an empty pool". aD made a mistake in jumping into java and abandoning tcl, before having a complete product. I think we have a long way to go before we can be completely independent from aD.
