I made myself a note sometime back to ask folks about the “strictEq” name after a little time. What do folks think about it? Has it grown on you, now that it’s no longer new? Or is it seeming arbitrary and strange?
This is about the point where I’ve used the name long enough that I can no longer say much of anything about how I see it. I can say that I dig the logo:
It hasn’t grown on me. Here’s my stream of consciousness in browsing the current website. Hope it’s useful!
I don’t think “strict equality” is a phrase that evokes useful feelings or intent.
What does equality mean? How is it strict?
What is the “one liner” of the license? Or does it refer to the payment scheme?
Examples that I can type up without referring back to the source that seem to stick for me:
The Parity License is free for open source, with private license options for closed source usage.
The Prosperity License is free to use for non commercial purposes, with private license options for commercial usage.
License Zero is an automated software licensing sales system that helps to sell private license exceptions for primarily open licenses such as Parity and Prosperity
===
I’ll take a crack at it:
strictEq is a simple, open catalog of user-supported public software.
It’s a catalog? Nothing about the name suggests anything related to open or user-supported either.
All strictEq software is available under a standard deal. If you use the software to make money or for work, buy a license from the developer. Otherwise, you’re free to use and share for free. And to offer the same deal for your own software.
It’s a standard deal, not a strict deal? It’s mainly about the deal?
That last “and to offer” sentence muddies the messaging here I think. Or is it meant to hint that combined software falls under this deal?
the code you depend on depends on you
Catchy! Feels like strong home page material.
Dependable Equality? Strict Dependency?
===
Words that spring out:
===
I think you’re trying to name the standard deal terms, the “equality” of paying for stuff that you build on (ie core movement building), and the catalog / service. I’m not suggesting you come up with MORE names, just trying to outline how it feels and how it will end up getting used together.
So:
It may be useful to plop in some alternate names into the sentences above to try out something else.
The actual sounds of STRICKT-ECK don’t really work for me. Sounds even worse if I pronounce it in German 
(roughly, “Knitting Corner” if I reverse engineer what those sounds mean)
FWIW - I like the logo mark!
Previous thread link for those wondering:
It hasn’t grown on me, I still just think of ===.
Perhaps a name that isn’t a portmanteau and is not a combination of words, as with those, the name becomes a description, when a name should be a noun, not a combination of verbs and adjectives. This also has the advantage of allowing the project to grow/pivot/expand beyond its initial description.
Perhaps stick equality or fairness into google translate and try all the various languages until you find something that you like. That’s what I did for Bevry, as well as many of my projects.
The names Open Collective and GitHub Sponsors are more obviously descriptive of their goals. strictEq requires more decoding.
The logo is nice. It reminds me more of the Woolmark certification than recycling. That said, I don’t think a logo is important, especially at this early stage.
Perhaps you’ve written it elsewhere, but it could be helpful to have a short, succinct description of the problem you’re now aiming to solve. Both potential solutions and their branding are easier to evaluate with that in mind.
Thank you all for feedback. I’m convinced I need to go back to brainstorming.
I thought “strictEq” was growing on me, but when I finally gave it enough remove, I found I didn’t feel much about it. I tried to be honest, and if I’m honest, it feels like a placeholder name, a code name, rather than a final name.
FWIW, the “equality” in “strictEq” was supposed to emphasize that anyone who buys licenses for software on the site is also fully empowered to sell licenses for their own work the same way. There aren’t separate buyer and seller account types on the site. More generally, the message was that “the deal” on offer is one folks can both offer to others and accept from others, because it’s fundamentally fair.
I’ll start keeping a list of new ideas. Hopefully I’ll have some to bring back here soon.