yes you can call a node by a different name. writ it in a different language but if you intend to make the codebase propose a differnt rule set and want to form a consensus that opposes core.. you will see the REKT campaign begin.
the only way to desire to change the rules or add a feature to cores network is first via their moderatd IRC
then their moderated mailing list
then their moderated BIP list
core hates consensus. thats why any node wanting consensus gets handed a bilateral split or REKT unless the non cor roadmap node does its own unilateral fork. purely to keepcores roadmap ontrack as the sole/only route forward
Still backwards. It's not the Core dev team enforcing that process. It's the users who enforce it by running the code. The fact that most of the nodes are running a Core client strongly indicates users
like the way you can't change the rules without going through the moderated IRC/mailing list/BIP process. If a majority of network participants didn't like it working that way, it wouldn't.
If another developer created a client that a majority of users preferred, there's nothing to prevent a change in the rules. The other developer wouldn't have to follow Core's processes if they had adequate support from the users. But that's yet to happen. Because of the users. Not because of Core's processes. It seems you're the one who doesn't like consensus when you don't agree with it.
Dev teams push code. Users enforce it. All that's happening here is that the vast preponderance of users disagree with you and they aren't going to let you rename their network.