incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <>
Subject Re: This problem of mine
Date Thu, 14 May 2009 07:45:01 GMT
El mié, 13-05-2009 a las 00:33 +0200, Emmanuel Lecharny escribió:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> >> JSecurity was deemed as a potential naming conflict risk (much in the same
> >> way Ki is now), so we dropped it, and finally came to a vote to change the
> >> name to Ki.  But this resolution took over 4 or 5 months to finally come to
> >> a favorable vote, so we didn't want to go through that painful process all
> >> over again, since it seemed like no one was willing to come to consensus on
> >> other names.  It is very difficult to find an even remotely-correlated name
> >> in the security space that might not infringe on another
> >> site/company/product/trademark/patent.
> >>     
> >
> > ok, I see. At least, for JSecurity, these conflicts never came up, did they?
> >   
> > That's why so many project go with names from biona or mythology.
> >
> >   
> >> Given the difficulty and the enormous amount of time spent already, we just
> >> wanted to move on to focus exactly on the things you mention, and only worry
> >> about changing the name yet again if it was absolutely required by the
> >> Incubator to do so.  That being said, if the Incubator says "the Ki podling
> >> must change its name", then fine, we'll be happy to do so, but most of us
> >> didn't want to spend the effort worrying about it unless necessary.
> >>     
> >
> > To me, it seems neccessary, but this is just my 2 eurocent.
> >   
> It took 4 months to move from JSecurity to Ki, just because, very like 
> this thread, people are *discussing* for ever something which would be 
> immediately solved if common sense was applied : avoid as much as 
> possible any risk, and change the name if the risk is becoming a reality.

This is the answer you will most likely get from legal. Lawyers know
that their business is about managing risk, and risking a conflict with
a new name is typically not worth it. It is different when the name has
been in use before and has built up some brand power.

The ASF is typically not about deciding for the projects/podlings, but
about letting them decide. If something so small (though with biksheding
potential) is dragging the community, I'd see it more as a symptom of
another, hidden conflict, than as a real problem.

That said, and if a vote on this issue would come to the PRC I would
vote against having a *new* name that has a conflict, versus a well
known one in the same situation. And I bet the lawyers would do the

> It will take another 4 months to decide to switch from Ki to something 
> more appropriate if we follow the same pattern. That's a waste of time 
> and energy.

Don't follow the same pattern, then. I don't have much better ideas than
this obvious one, though.

> Bernd, I'm totally on the same page with you.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message