3 ms·

Uh oh, they still don't seem to have fully relinquished their claims to the name "WebAssembly". Their vscode package is listed under "WebAssembly Foundation".

Uh oh, they still don't seem to have fully relinquished their claims to the name "WebAssembly". Their vscode package is listed under "WebAssembly Foundation". https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/publishers/dtsvet https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/publishers/dtsvet

syrusakbary 4y ago
It's been this way for a little bit already (actually since 3 years ago! [1]). It was an intentional thing though, because we want to put this extension under a common group, not something that only Wasmer owns... that's why we haven't changed it yet. But I agree that probably using WebAssembly Foundation is perhaps not the best name :) [1]: https://github.com/wasmerio/vscode-wasm/commit/0f7f00f44aa722505a45eb0f783acf06b956d1b9 https://github.com/wasmerio/vscode-wasm/commit/0f7f00f44aa72...
- benatkin 4y ago
  WebAssembly Foundation is a misleading name. WebAssembly has a foundation, just not a separate one. It's W3C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly I like that OpenJS Foundation is called OpenJS Foundation and not JS Foundation. That said, the main thing I object to is the trademark.
  - syrusakbary 4y ago
    You actually gave me a great idea! Perhaps we can rename it to OpenWasm Foundation (I think that's a great name, your suggestion inspired me). I will discuss with more people to see what name will make more sense to rename it to. And please let me know if you have other suggestions!
    - benatkin 4y ago
      Good luck. I wouldn't mind having multiple organizations. The Bytecode Alliance is great but I would rather people recognize that WebAssembly belongs to the W3C (or everyone via the W3C if you prefer to think of it that way) and not them or the CNCF.
      - syrusakbary 4y ago
        > I would rather people recognize that WebAssembly belongs to the W3C (or everyone via the W3C if you prefer to think of it that way) and not them I 300% agree with you on this

syrusakbary 4y ago

It's been this way for a little bit already (actually since 3 years ago! [1]). It was an intentional thing though, because we want to put this extension under a common group, not something that only Wasmer owns... that's why we haven't changed it yet. But I agree that probably using WebAssembly Foundation is perhaps not the best name :) [1]: https://github.com/wasmerio/vscode-wasm/commit/0f7f00f44aa722505a45eb0f783acf06b956d1b9 https://github.com/wasmerio/vscode-wasm/commit/0f7f00f44aa72...

benatkin 4y ago
WebAssembly Foundation is a misleading name. WebAssembly has a foundation, just not a separate one. It's W3C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly I like that OpenJS Foundation is called OpenJS Foundation and not JS Foundation. That said, the main thing I object to is the trademark.
- syrusakbary 4y ago
  You actually gave me a great idea! Perhaps we can rename it to OpenWasm Foundation (I think that's a great name, your suggestion inspired me). I will discuss with more people to see what name will make more sense to rename it to. And please let me know if you have other suggestions!
  - benatkin 4y ago
    Good luck. I wouldn't mind having multiple organizations. The Bytecode Alliance is great but I would rather people recognize that WebAssembly belongs to the W3C (or everyone via the W3C if you prefer to think of it that way) and not them or the CNCF.
    - syrusakbary 4y ago
      > I would rather people recognize that WebAssembly belongs to the W3C (or everyone via the W3C if you prefer to think of it that way) and not them I 300% agree with you on this