What should this CAN stack be called?

[ad3154]

I am in the process of developing a "getting started" and tutorial website based on sphinx! My goal is to have something similar to projects like this: https://docs.ros.org/en/rolling/

But, I am getting a bit tired of just calling it "the ISO 11783 CAN stack". Though descriptive, I was wondering if anyone had a good idea for a shorter, catchier name. Branding is kind of important for an open source project.

Suggestions are welcome. Please keep suggestions compliant with the project's Code of conduct

[Thom-de-Jong]

I think "OpenIsobus" would be catchy.

[ad3154]

It seems like OpenIsobus might be somewhat taken already by this company https://anedo.eu/openisobus/

I am somewhat partial to ISOBUS++ myself

[GwnDaan]

ISOBUS++ fits particularly well with C++ so I like it. I had ISOBUSLib in mind, but I don't like the way it's similar to IsoAgLib. So I prefer ISOBUS++ instead

[ad3154]

Tentative branding 😯

[dlips]

Hello everyone,
I know this is an older topic and you already renamed the project, but I want to raise my concerns with both proposals. Isobus is a registered trademark in the EU by the AEF (probably also in the US), which makes projects with the suggested names vulnerable to any legal action by the trademark holders as they are to similiar and in the same field. This gives me stomach pain, while just started preparing a contribution for the project, I think about deleting my forked repo because of that. In principle everything can go well, but please keep in mind that there are also software companies in the AEF that provide ISO 11783 stacks as a product, who could see this open source project as a competion at some point.
As I like the current name really much, I think it is also kind of dangerous.

[Thom-de-Jong]

Really unfortunate as the word best describing the project simply is: Isobus...

I'm not a fan of calling it any combination of the words Open / CAN as it might confuse to much with the CANOpen protocol or even just the CAN bus in general. (This project is more specific than just CAN)

I don't know of any new names on the top of my head but i like IsoStack++, IsoStack-rs, etc. 😛

@GwnDaan, I like the organisation name OpenAgriculture, makes growth into other things than just Isobus possible while perfectly describing our combined goal.

[dlips]

+1 for IsoStack.

Other ideas: AgNet, AgriNet, CANnector, CANagTor, IsoCANCore, AgroCore, AgriLink, AgroWire, BarnBytes, farmline, farmwire, transfarm, isolink (sorry, some are silly, just brain storming)

[GwnDaan]

Great stuff! I'd like to add:

• AgIsoStack -> (AgIsoStack++, AgIsoStack-rs, etc.)

I agree with the arguments @Thom-de-Jong made regarding CAN. But I'd like to add that ISO is also much broader than only ISO11783/isobus. Hence calling it solely "IsoStack" might not really be that descriptive of what this project really is. So I feel like adding agriculture / tractor / ag-machinery or something is a must for that reason. Since there are plans of having (parts of) isobus not use CAN communication anymore in the future, I think we also should maybe not include CAN in the name.

This is the abstraction of ISO11783 from iso.org, maybe it might help:

ISO 11783 as a whole specifies a serial data network for control and communications on forestry or agricultural tractors and mounted, semi-mounted, towed or self-propelled implements.

[ad3154]

I also think tying it back to agriculture is probably a good idea, as is avoiding confusion with CANopen. Technically the target audience is broader with forestry and construction being other industry groups that use the standard, but Ag is of course the largest and most invested industry. Plus, most of the attention this project seems to get comes from the Ag industry. So I think I am liking "AgIsoStack" the best so far... and yeah I also agree "OpenAgriculture" is great as an Org name (we have been searching for a good Org name for a while, haha)

I think that no matter what we go with we'll want to keep mentioning the ISOBUS standard, as well as J1939 in our description and README as well, which will help people find us using searches both on and off GitHub. Though it may be worth adding some language to the README that we are unaffiliated with AEF and SAE.

[ad3154]

I have created an Org here https://github.com/Open-Agriculture and will move this repository into it after making an announcement here in the discussions pages