# Clients expressing doubt about choosing Elm

**URL:** <https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/clients-expressing-doubt-about-choosing-elm/6835>\
**Category:** Request Feedback\
**Created:** [February 2, 2021, 7:52am UTC](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/clients-expressing-doubt-about-choosing-elm/6835 "2021-02-02T07:52:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 51

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lucas\_Payr](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex035/user_avatar/discourse.elm-lang.org/lucas_payr/32/4993_2.png) [@Lucas\_Payr](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/u/Lucas_Payr)\
**Post date:** [February 9, 2021, 9:54am UTC](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/clients-expressing-doubt-about-choosing-elm/6835/51 "2021-02-09T09:54:32Z")

</div>

> [@Maldus512](#):
>
> I remember reading somewhere that Evan himself is not opposed to a fork as long as it doesn’t use Elm’s name (do not quote me on this).

I believe you mean this discussion?

> [@Afterthoughts around about Kernel code and custom operators complaints](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/afterthoughts-around-about-kernel-code-and-custom-operators-complaints/5558/63):
>
> Just one note. I don’t think any fork should include elm in a name. I’m kind of fan of interpreting this Clause in BSD3 quite strictly: 3. Neither the name of the \<organization\> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. I think it protects original authors from being tight to stuff they don’t approve of, what ever it might be. I would suggest picking up some name of the tree for name…

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/clients-expressing-doubt-about-choosing-elm/6835)._