Removing the MultiMC name from the UI

[zaafonin]

This project was always named "MultiMC Cracked" because it, well, was a fork of MultiMC. However, MultiMC's Apache license does not allow to use the original MultiMC name for its forks (from the original README, This means people must take the time to go through the source code and remove all references to "MultiMC", including but not limited to the project icon and the title of windows, (no MultiMC-fork in the title).

Despite not having any problems with the MultiMC developer team, using the original name for this project is still a violation of the original license. Oh, and also people may have problems with this rarely updated, not really tested fork and report the problems to the original developers. To resolve this, it would be the best to strip this launcher of any visible mentions of MultiMC, except for the credits to its developers.

[Dakkaron]

How about the Github repo? Is this allowed to be called MultiMC-Cracked?

[zaafonin]

It can be renamed, but I've heard it can lead to some problems - also, I think that's how people initially found this repository.

[Dakkaron]

That's what I thought... Renaming the repo would be troublesome. The question is just if the Apache license applies to the product only, or also to surrounding material like the repo name.

[Neptune650]

We can start by MultiMC#3606, it already changes most definitions of MultiMC to launcher, but doesn't compiles yet.

[zaafonin]

I've seen several MultiMC contributors discuss our fork in not-so-positive light, but I agree we need to rebrand and detach so nobody grinds their gears and causing any tantrums by uploading a crash log with a different version string. Any suggestions for the new name? @sebastian-byte @Dakkaron if you're not busy oc

[Neptune650]

I've seen several MultiMC contributors discuss our fork in not-so-positive light, but I agree we need to rebrand and detach so nobody grinds their gears and causing any tantrums by uploading a crash log with a different version string. Any suggestions for the new name? @sebastian-byte @Dakkaron if you're not busy oc

I'm not sure, however debranding should be a lot easier now.

[Darthagnon]

What about UltimMC (anagram)? Or Meinkraft or Meincrack? Or MineKraken; could be a good "nautical" reference, as well as relevant to this being a fork/branch of the original, and supporting multiple account types (like octopus legs)?

[MenacingPerson]

+1 for UltimMC

[Slddev]

+1 for UltimMC

[SlimF]

CrackMC?

[MenacingPerson]

CrackMC?

Kinda sounds like a launcher which also happens to be a minecraft drug marketplace

[SlimF]

CrackMC?

Kinda sounds like a launcher which also happens to be a minecraft drug marketplace

You're saying it as if it's a bad thing

[Neptune650]

Most debranding work already have been done in upstream, we should customize the secrets library to use our own brand.

[ghost]

The original README should eventually be updated as well. I point this out because I almost contacted the MultiMC devs on Discord by accident. If I wasn't logged out, I would probably not have realized that was the wrong Discord server.

[MenacingPerson]

The original README should eventually be updated as well. I point this out because I almost contacted the MultiMC devs on Discord by accident. If I wasn't logged out, I would probably not have realized that was the wrong Discord server.

Yeah I made #88 for that

[max8rr8]

I changed launcher name to UltimMC

[MenacingPerson]

Build artifacts still have "MultiMC" folder in them.

[max8rr8]

Well, i fix that after repository rename

[MenacingPerson]

That's fixed too... I think this should be closed?

[Neptune650]

Yes

[MenacingPerson]

Probably unpin this, @sebastian-byte ?

[Slddev]

Why is this still not unpinned?

[Neptune650]

Because we probably want to people be aware that there was a debranding process.

[Neptune650]

@AfoninZ I consider that you should rename this repository as well.

[julcioo]

@sebastian-byte you are right.

[OskarZyg]

Why are all of you worrying about this license violation when the entire repository is dedicated to intentionally violating Mojangs EULA?

[zaafonin]

IMO the "no MultiMC name" license is justified: there have been many buggy unmaintained forks keeping the original name, leading users to mail support of original MultiMC when in reality it's the fork that has a problem. I think MMC developers are cool people doing cool things and they deserve better than doing tech support for sketchy forks.