We are preparing to OpenSource our ASP.NET MVC multi-tenancy CMS. We currently use BitBucket.org to host our source repository and we are considering best approaches to repository naming.

In terms of the user/host of the repository, We are debating using our company name which is the sponsor of the project versus the project name itself.

The company name is JoyaTech Solutions, the project name is JoyaCMS.

Do people think that having a company name as the user/owner of an open source project is a turn off or is there value in displaying that relationship?

2 Answers 2


There are a number of open source projects which are maintained by corporate entities. If it's truly going to be open source and you expect to accept outside contributions, I don't think anyone really cares. Having corporate ownership also could make a link for support easier for people to grasp.

If you are going to do this, I would move to Github over using BitBucket. Github provides powerful tools to allow outsides easily contribute minor changes.

  • Would you say more about what the advantages of Github over BitBucket are for open source projects? I am looking into it but you seem to have some knowledge in this area. Commented Sep 9, 2011 at 18:33
  • 2
    The ease in which you can engage your users and get them involved I feel is unmatched by BitBucket. And I hate to say it, Github is where all (okay, maybe not all) the cool kids in open source go and play.
    – Travis
    Commented Sep 9, 2011 at 19:20

To the programming community, software is either open source or not. Your software could be called something ridiculous and if it's open source, most people would not care. Then again, you haven't specified what your goal is or what you're trying to prevent. I'm going to guess you're considering usage of your software.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.