www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Veil <tjv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Change JSecurity's Name
Date Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:02:20 GMT

On Jan 11, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

>
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Tim Veil wrote:
>
>> I guess my take is that
>> JSecurity has been in the name of this project for nearly 4 years  
>> without compliant
>
> Sorry, I'm not following.  Unless Juniper has held the name for  
> three years or less, how is that relevant?

I guess I'm suggesting that JSecurity has been out in the wild for 4  
years.  At no time during this period has Juniper been concerned about  
name collision enough to contact anyone on the project.  That suggests  
to me they will be unlikely to do so in the future. I have no idea how  
long they have been using their name.

>
>
>> JSecurity has name recognition and a following
>
> Sorry, I don't understand if this is pertinent other than it being  
> motivation for keeping the name.  I also am motivated to keep the  
> name but I don't see how we can get past the issues below.
>
>> The project of concern, "J-Security" is not a product at all but  
>> rather a " resource for security information and analysis."
>> J-Security's parent company Juniper is in the network hardware  
>> business not the Java application business
>> JSecurity is an open-source software project not a "product" we are  
>> looking to sell (not a competitor in any way to Juniper)
>
> It doesn't matter if we sell a product or not.  It's a name  
> collision, albeit a potential collision.  If they chose to push out  
> a product under that name we would be in trouble; if I am wrong here  
> someone please tell me.

I don't think you are wrong it just seems like such a remote  
possibility.  In order for them to do this they would have to stray  
pretty far from their existing business. Even if they were to enter  
the fray and offer a similar product it seems unlikely they would  
choose to do so under the J-Security banner.  I would imagine they  
would they would create a new brand for this service since they  
already have an unrelated presence under the name J-Security.   
Repackaging their J-Security center into something unrelated wouldn't  
make much sense.

>
>
> Now, if you told me that we held our name longer than Juniper held  
> theirs then it would be a different story.
>
> So to put it more succinctly, here are the criteria where I am happy  
> to change my vote.  Any single one would work for me.


Would you change your vote if I use the magic word?  Please?


>
>
> 1) We held the name longer than Juniper - I'll take anyone's word on  
> this
> 2) If Juniper came out with a product under their service offering  
> we would have nothing to worry about - I will only take an informed  
> opinion
>
> I'm guessing that the others would change their vote as well.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> Here's my take and I'm not intransigent on this.  I'll use a bit  
>>> of hyperbole to make my point.
>>>
>>> If some company who makes hand made woven baskets has had the name  
>>> JSecurity there would be no problem.  If that company decides to   
>>> market a program that trains people in basket weaving written in  
>>> java there would be no problem.
>>>
>>> However, other computer security companies have an earlier claim  
>>> to JSecurity.  If they decide the release a suite of java programs  
>>> that performs security analysis then there's overlap.
>>>
>>> Why would we want to live in the grey area anyway?  Am I  
>>> misunderstanding something?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2009, at 5:05 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really understand what problem is being solved here.
>>>>
>>>> geir
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -1 to changing the name at this time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know my vote isn't binding, but I just want a record of it. At  
>>>>> the
>>>>> moment, I think any potential causes of conflict, given that  
>>>>> there are
>>>>> NO trademark or patent conflicts, are dubious at best.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Les
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com

>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> any more...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, former board member. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 2, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a board member. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com

>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -1 Do not change JSecurity's name
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We had the discussion in early December on the legal mailing
 
>>>>>>>> list and no
>>>>>>>> issues were raised contrary to Henri's comments. Henri is
the  
>>>>>>>> only board
>>>>>>>> member who commented on the JSecurity name during the  
>>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We will have at least three more votes where additional 

>>>>>>>> issues regarding
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> name can be brought up:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. The first release of JSecurity code from the incubator.
>>>>>>>> 2. The graduation vote of JSecurity taken by the incubator
PMC.
>>>>>>>> 3. The acceptance of JSecurity by the Apache board after
the  
>>>>>>>> incubator
>>>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear JSecurity Team,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There has been lengthy debate without consensus as to whether
 
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> JSecurity's
>>>>>>>> name should be changed to something else.  So, there is need
 
>>>>>>>> for a vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please vote on changing JSecurity's name to something else.
  
>>>>>>>> This is ONLY
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> vote of if we should change the name, NOT what any alternate
 
>>>>>>>> name might
>>>>>>>> be.
>>>>>>>> I'd like to leave this vote open for 7 days instead of the
 
>>>>>>>> usual 3 to
>>>>>>>> account for time that people may not be able to respond due
 
>>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>>> holidays.  Of course we can close the vote early if all 

>>>>>>>> binding votes are
>>>>>>>> accounted for prior to the 7 day limit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The vote is open for the next 7 days and only votes from
the  
>>>>>>>> JSecurity
>>>>>>>> development team are binding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Change JSecurity's name
>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not change JSecurity's name
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Given that it's a name you've been using for 4 years,
and  
>>>>>>>>> it's very
>>>>>>>>> generic [jXxx being a common pattern in our space and
 
>>>>>>>>> Security being
>>>>>>>>> very generic]; I'm inclined to keep the current name;
though  
>>>>>>>>> by the
>>>>>>>>> same reasoning, it's a weak name as "Apache JSecurity"
isn't  
>>>>>>>>> very good
>>>>>>>>> branding.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My tuppence of opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hen
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org

>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi ASF legal team,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm writing this email in hopes of getting your feedback
 
>>>>>>>>>> concerning a
>>>>>>>>>> discussion we've been having on the JSecurity email
list  
>>>>>>>>>> (an Incubator
>>>>>>>>>> project).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A few of our mentors have expressed concern that
there  
>>>>>>>>>> might be a
>>>>>>>>>> possible naming conflict with our project name (JSecurity)
 
>>>>>>>>>> and some
>>>>>>>>>> other references found through google and other search
 
>>>>>>>>>> mechanisms.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to point out that the JSecurity name, as
an open  
>>>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>>>> project identity has been around for almost 4 years
now,  
>>>>>>>>>> with zero
>>>>>>>>>> contact from any external entity claiming conflict
with a  
>>>>>>>>>> proprietary
>>>>>>>>>> name or product.  I know this isn't legal criteria
for  
>>>>>>>>>> determining if
>>>>>>>>>> there is a name conflict, but I surface it only to
put some  
>>>>>>>>>> context of
>>>>>>>>>> why the original JSecurity developers (and our well-

>>>>>>>>>> established
>>>>>>>>>> communities) think we should keep the JSecurity name.
  
>>>>>>>>>> There might be
>>>>>>>>>> older references to this name, unrelated to our project,
 
>>>>>>>>>> but we don't
>>>>>>>>>> know for certain if they would constitute a risk
in the  
>>>>>>>>>> name overlap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We'd like some feedback as to if the project name
should be  
>>>>>>>>>> changed or
>>>>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Here is what one of our mentors summarized after
doing some  
>>>>>>>>>> research:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>> Now, looking a bit forward on google, here are some
other  
>>>>>>>>>> references
>>>>>>>>>> to JSecurity :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://jwicglobal.com/Knowledge.htm
>>>>>>>>>> <http://jwicglobal.com/Knowledge.htm>
>>>>>>>>>> "WIC GLOBAL has developed a comprehensive Information
 
>>>>>>>>>> Security
>>>>>>>>>> Assessment service called JSecurity. Our JSecurity
experts  
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> conduct a full information security risk assessment
 
>>>>>>>>>> focusing on:"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.juniper.net/security/ <http://www.juniper.net/security/

>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like they have a service called  J-Security.
Be sure  
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> Juniper has a legal service who might perfectly well
send  
>>>>>>>>>> some nicely
>>>>>>>>>> written "cease and desist" letter to the ASF about
this  
>>>>>>>>>> name. Not sure
>>>>>>>>>> that our legals want to deal with that ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.jegers.com/dnn/Products/JPortfolio/tabid/83/Default.aspx
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.jegers.com/dnn/Products/JPortfolio/tabid/83/Default.aspx

>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> Another JSecurity... Seems to be around since 2/11/2005
(at  
>>>>>>>>>> least)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.powerlogic.com.br/powerportal/ecp/files.do?evento=download&urlArqPlc=fld_jc_produc_ing_web2.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.powerlogic.com.br/powerportal/ecp/files.do?evento=download&urlArqPlc=fld_jc_produc_ing_web2.pdf

>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> This company has a product named JSecurity. Since
when ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As much as I like the JSecurity name, I also think
that we  
>>>>>>>>>> are un
>>>>>>>>>> potential jeopardy if we don't change its name. That's
the  
>>>>>>>>>> main issue
>>>>>>>>>> we have : we can't afford any kind of legal action
when we  
>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>> know that there are company out there which already
use  
>>>>>>>>>> this name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I can be wrong, I'm just trying to gather
as much  
>>>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>>>> as possible. When you guys think you have set your
mind  
>>>>>>>>>> about this
>>>>>>>>>> name, you will have to go to legal@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:legal@apache.org> with the selected
name (be it  
>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity or
>>>>>>>>>> any other) to double check that it's ok or not (IFAIK).
 
>>>>>>>>>> That is one of
>>>>>>>>>> the condition to exit from the incubator :
>>>>>>>>>> "Check of project name for trademark issues "
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements

>>>>>>>>>> >).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> </snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your review and feedback!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Les Hazlewood <lhazlewood@apache.org

>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Adam,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks _very_ much for such a detailed and thoughtful
 
>>>>>>>>>>> opinion.  I love
>>>>>>>>>>> to see people who aren't necessarily code contributors
 
>>>>>>>>>>> contribute to
>>>>>>>>>>> the project in other ways.  This is very valuable
to us.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am in total agreement with your sentiments
thus far.  It  
>>>>>>>>>>> is my
>>>>>>>>>>> opinion that the name we have is great as it
is and I'd  
>>>>>>>>>>> only like to
>>>>>>>>>>> change the name if someone from legal puts pressure
on us  
>>>>>>>>>>> to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>> IANAL, so I'd have to trust their judgment. 
I'm going to  
>>>>>>>>>>> post this to
>>>>>>>>>>> legal in just a few minutes asking their feedback.
 I'd  
>>>>>>>>>>> like to hear
>>>>>>>>>>> what they say regardless of what we end up doing
- I'm  
>>>>>>>>>>> genuinely
>>>>>>>>>>> curious :)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again very much for chiming in.  Its nice
to see  
>>>>>>>>>>> that you (and
>>>>>>>>>>> others) are taking continued interest in the
project.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Les
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM, adamtaft  
>>>>>>>>>>> <adam@adamtaft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not really a contributor to the JSecurity
project yet  
>>>>>>>>>>>> (though I
>>>>>>>>>>>> hope to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be in the future).  However, this thread
has caught my  
>>>>>>>>>>>> attention, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> so I
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought I'd give a couple of thoughts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have an interest, call it a hobby, in name
related  
>>>>>>>>>>>> issues for
>>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>> projects, open source included.  So, though
I don't speak  
>>>>>>>>>>>> from any
>>>>>>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>>>>>>> background (I guess beyond a little professional),
I  
>>>>>>>>>>>> would like to
>>>>>>>>>>>> point out
>>>>>>>>>>>> a few things about the name Alcatraz.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> First, as I believe has been mentioned, the
term Alcatraz  
>>>>>>>>>>>> has been
>>>>>>>>>>>> associated with other software products already.
 So,  
>>>>>>>>>>>> this is bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> news
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to trademark related issues.  Just
because its a  
>>>>>>>>>>>> geographic
>>>>>>>>>>>> location
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that it can't be trademarked.
 Thus, likely  
>>>>>>>>>>>> these other
>>>>>>>>>>>> software products are going to have problems
with any  
>>>>>>>>>>>> related use of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> term Alcatraz.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Second, the connotation for JSecurity implies
that the  
>>>>>>>>>>>> product is
>>>>>>>>>>>> used
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> keep people out of the protected system.
 This is what  
>>>>>>>>>>>> the term
>>>>>>>>>>>> "security"
>>>>>>>>>>>> implies, right?  Alcatraz is a prison.  It
was NOT meant  
>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> out,
>>>>>>>>>>>> it was meant to keep people in.  The use
is only quasi- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> related, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>> confusing, for a product with your feature
set.  Alcatraz  
>>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>>>>>>> a better name for a product which keeps workstation/

>>>>>>>>>>>> network users
>>>>>>>>>>>> constrained in their internet use, like a
firewall, or a  
>>>>>>>>>>>> web proxy,
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> example.  Or a child internet monitoring
product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't underestimate the importance of this
point.  The  
>>>>>>>>>>>> name of a
>>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>>> should ideally be somewhat self describing,
especially  
>>>>>>>>>>>> when starting
>>>>>>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until the name becomes a core brand, having
a self  
>>>>>>>>>>>> describing name
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>>>> a big difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I don't think you can underestimate
how important  
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> can search the name of your product and find
it through  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Google (and
>>>>>>>>>>>> friends).  Clearly the term Alcatraz has
a huge number of  
>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>> hits,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and you would clearly be lost any search
engine placement  
>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Much better to have a name for your software
that is the  
>>>>>>>>>>>> only known
>>>>>>>>>>>> reference so that people can easily find
you after having  
>>>>>>>>>>>> hear the
>>>>>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is why so many companies go crazy and
conjure  
>>>>>>>>>>>> completely strange
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical product names.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fourth, Alcatraz is a relatively difficult
name to spell,  
>>>>>>>>>>>> which again
>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes problematic for the above search
recognition  
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alkitraz?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some people simply won't know how to spell
it immediately  
>>>>>>>>>>>> (though
>>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>>>> minor point, admittedly).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Fifth, it seems like you're making preparations
for  
>>>>>>>>>>>> something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> even know to be a problem.  Yes, the Apache
legal team  
>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>>>>>> consulted.
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, it seems like jumping the gun to
just start  
>>>>>>>>>>>> changing package
>>>>>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>>>>>> with anticipation of a name change.  You
would be crazy  
>>>>>>>>>>>> to start
>>>>>>>>>>>> renaming
>>>>>>>>>>>> packages based on some unknown possibility
that it has to  
>>>>>>>>>>>> happen in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> future.  What value does this add to the
software?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Following the sigma-six and/or extreme programming
world  
>>>>>>>>>>>> view, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> be making any change to your software until
the change is  
>>>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> required
>>>>>>>>>>>> and value is added.  Do you have a pending
lawsuit?  Has  
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Apache
>>>>>>>>>>>> council
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested the change?  Are you being blocked
by the  
>>>>>>>>>>>> incubation
>>>>>>>>>>>> process?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>> even consider a change until it needs to
be done.  Energy  
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be
>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>>>>> spent on other matters.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a trivial thing to refactor a project
from  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse.  But,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that's
>>>>>>>>>>>> only a very small part of the bigger issue.
 Disruption,  
>>>>>>>>>>>> confusion,
>>>>>>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>>>>>>> search engine optimization, etc. are what
needs to be  
>>>>>>>>>>>> thought about
>>>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>>>> changing the name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, what if you decide to change the
name to  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alcatraz, and then
>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure from another software group?  Ouch,
time to  
>>>>>>>>>>>> rename the
>>>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>>>>> yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you all are better just letting this
thing ride  
>>>>>>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>>>> real
>>>>>>>>>>>> convicting suggests you need a change.  JSecurity
is a  
>>>>>>>>>>>> great product
>>>>>>>>>>>> name
>>>>>>>>>>>> which you should stick with until otherwise
needed.  And,  
>>>>>>>>>>>> if that day
>>>>>>>>>>>> comes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Alcatraz is just simply the wrong name, in
my humble  
>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, for all
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons mentioned above.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Adam
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2008, at 2:32 PM, Emmanuel
Lecharny wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2008, at 9:51
AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008
at 6:01 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <elecharny@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post to legal-discuss@a.o,
ask them, but give them  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the names we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have googled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this needs to
be vetted, so I'm happy to  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal-discuss.  But,
I can't easily find the thread  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> googled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names.  Could you please
forward them on so I can  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal team?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me suggest this.  It
seems to me that that  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alcatraz is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favorite, after jsecurity.
 Let's start setting up  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be alcatraz and when/if
we get the go-ahead from  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incubator PMC we can change
the packages to be  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jsecurity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I think then it's better
to stick with JSecurity  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already the name we use), ask
to Legal, and move to  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alcatraz if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed (or any other name).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the first step, IMHO, is to
ask Legal about the  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jsecurity name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with all the infos we have already
found about it),  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and also ask
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the same mail if Alcatraz
is ok or not (same  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here : add
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more infos related to this name,
assuming that being a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geographical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> location, it should not be such
a problem).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Legal is not a clearing house for
project names.  They  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advice if there's a potential conflict,
i.e.  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity.  So far as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can tell, there is none for alcatraz.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I'm worried about is that the
vetting effort for  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the JSecurity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> name will have the same track record
as the v0.9  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release.  If we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with alcatraz then we have one less
thing impeding our  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start with Alcratraz then, and
we have quit some  
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vetting before 1.0 (hopefully when the
project exits from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So my +1 for alcatraz and +1 for doing
the renaming now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cordialement, regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Emmanuel L├ęcharny
>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.iktek.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directory.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://n2.nabble.com/JSecurity%27s-new-name-tp1569003p1601248.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent from the JSecurity Developer mailing
list archive at  
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational
and  
>>>>>>>>> educational
>>>>>>>>> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged,
do not
>>>>>>>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect
the  
>>>>>>>>> opinions
>>>>>>>>> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/

>>>>>>>>> licenses/> for
>>>>>>>>> official ASF policies and documents.
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig L Russell
>>>>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message