The name of Analogue's platform is OpenFPGA. Theoretically the Pocket is just the first in a series of devices following the OpenFPGA standard, and other community resources/tooling for Analogue OpenFPGA assume this to be the case. Also Analogue's rhetoric/marketing seems to *strongly imply* companies other than Analogue could manufacture OpenFPGA devices, although it's unclear how they'd respond (legally) if someone tried, and it's not clear to me the standard is well-documented enough for this to actually be possible. Analogue does have a trademark on the "OpenFPGA" logo, although checking in the USPTO database, it does *not* show they have a trademark for the *name*, *only* the logo. I personally consider the name unfortunate because OpenFPGA directly competes with, but is absolutely less open than, MiSTER.

If there is a pre-existing project named "OpenFPGA", that makes Analogue's choice of name even more unfortunate, and may explain why they don't have a trademark on the name. But we still have to name the core something, and naming it AnaloguePocket would become awkward if at some point in the future Analogue releases, say, a Mega Sg 2 which supports OpenFPGA.

One option would be to call the platform base "AnalogueOpenFPGA", which is confusing, but unambiguous. It's also not clear to me Analogue OpenFPGA needs its own file in amaranth-boards in the short term, although if there's only an analogue_pocket.py I'd still recommend within that file having separate OpenFPGA and AnaloguePocket classes, even if the OpenFPGA class contains only a pass.