The name belongs to the non-profit and not a specific codebase, the previous codebase had itself a number of fundamental rewrites (eg. with the 0.7 release) and retained the name Freenet through them - this is no different.
The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration. There is risk but risk is inevitable if you want to make progress.
> The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration.
There was no "careful consideration" whatsoever.
What you did was the opposite of careful in fact:
Without ANY prior discussion with the maintainers of the existing Freenet project you came to the mailing list and DICTATED your decision of reusing the name "Freenet".
It's all publicly documented in the mailing list archive, see the thread "Important Announcement: Freenet naming change" of Ian Clarke (Ian Clarke is the user "sanity" I am replying to here):
When you dictated this, the team said they're against it - and you did it anyway.
Yes, you claimed you discussed it with the "board" of the project!
But the "board" only contains people who haven't talked to the team in over a decade. Of course they shrugged off your decision because the only way they are in contact with the project is through what you say, so you can shape their opinion however you please by selectively deciding what you tell them.
It was a very sad act of disgracing the effort of volunteer contributors.
And it isn't even in the best interest of your new project either, because it seems to haunt every discussion about it.
How about thinking about whether you made a mistake?
Mistakes happen and aren't bad. What's bad is never admitting one.
I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, but I need to correct some inaccuracies in your comment.
The decision to rebrand Locutus as Freenet 2023 was not made lightly or without discussion. On the contrary, I had an extensive discussion with the lead maintainer of the original codebase starting over a year before the decision was announced.
The primary reason for the redesign was to address the significant changes in technology and the web since the original Freenet was first designed in 1999 and underwent its last major redesign in 2005. These different eras brought different technologies and problems. To effectively address today's challenges, a comprehensive redesign was necessary.
As the architect of Freenet, it was my responsibility to make this decision based on what would lead to the best end result, even if it wasn't the most popular choice. The goal was to create software that could gain sufficient adoption to tackle the serious problems we're seeing with centralization today.
I understand that this decision was controversial and not everyone agreed with it. However, it was made to ensure that Freenet could continue to innovate and adapt in the face of modern challenges. Mistakes can happen, but in this case, the decision was made with careful consideration and a focus on the long-term goals of the project. I stand by my decision.
I appreciate the contributions of all volunteers and maintainers, and I deeply respect their work. The goal was never to overshadow their efforts but to build on the legacy of Freenet in a way that meets current and future needs.
I hope this clarifies the situation and provides some context for the decision.
The name change decision was made over a year ago after a long debate and very careful consideration. There is risk but risk is inevitable if you want to make progress.