Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 46331 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2009 01:35:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Jan 2009 01:35:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 16603 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2009 01:35:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 16334 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jan 2009 01:35:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 81529 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jan 2009 00:02:52 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS,WHOIS_MYPRIVREG X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of tjveil@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.250 as permitted sender) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:cc:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; bh=Cz6YvrVQvwLFw1z6rt28bNPoPTrPZ6yO+3Q6QTGX8bE=; b=dmAyEGJStejjlNsG2k97XD7u5zco2p0qZp0r9+o+igF0nN1e3j2AqXSW3FFLAhcjkS GAOwnpwsIePUij3bT5UNM/uIu1xme98vJRt1u9EvGkdwsxRqOX3e45aeUbmEFIpyxdIu WLzXn/En9j/tC1JI4IBMg+1RI4RJ9WcuhoWsE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version:subject :date:references:x-mailer; b=UvlFLJRXotjf3jEmI2NK/O20e4soSjpIpp0KqWB6W2kuUyoFeMd6RCdKAPEO3wbzfX JddF6qFuLdIEqFP/hJ2IsEAaxxoPgmN3b7TtGJyFfz6lSJ4NL+9cle7Rhk/SIB/RuyVr ec5SjrDgZ9jRUdxxZWUHn4BtURTb4Iys3W9Ys= Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org Message-Id: From: Tim Veil To: jsecurity-dev@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Apple-Mail-7-8270105; micalg=sha1; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [VOTE] Change JSecurity's Name Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:02:20 -0500 References: <2968BC3B-2092-480A-A97E-888E08E70B08@toolazydogs.com> <49338E7D.3030704@nextury.com> <1228174116217-1601248.post@n2.nabble.com> <44b57a610812011918n305a8ed5tcd5665f238550a92@mail.gmail.com> <44b57a610812011955v5d697834oc8e92cc038cd97a6@mail.gmail.com> <2d12b2f00812021306l2e3e7aa8jf446c11a91748f4d@mail.gmail.com> <4B5E628F-E714-4C58-B442-5D7386DD27D1@SUN.com> <2d12b2f00901021441o381e3288sdb7027561435f6aa@mail.gmail.com> <44b57a610901101700h655e5f0di76eeb1d56c26377f@mail.gmail.com> <46A10641-800C-4C8E-94D2-45C6A822CF55@pobox.com> <9D3151A0-4F2E-43DD-987C-F74EEE0D224C@toolazydogs.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --Apple-Mail-7-8270105 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 =20 >> without compliant > > Sorry, I'm not following. Unless Juniper has held the name for =20 > three years or less, how is that relevant? I guess I'm suggesting that JSecurity has been out in the wild for 4 =20 years. At no time during this period has Juniper been concerned about =20= name collision enough to contact anyone on the project. That suggests =20= to me they will be unlikely to do so in the future. I have no idea how =20= 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 =20 > motivation for keeping the name. I also am motivated to keep the =20 > 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 =20 >> rather a " resource for security information and analysis." >> J-Security's parent company Juniper is in the network hardware =20 >> business not the Java application business >> JSecurity is an open-source software project not a "product" we are =20= >> 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 =20 > collision, albeit a potential collision. If they chose to push out =20= > a product under that name we would be in trouble; if I am wrong here =20= > someone please tell me. I don't think you are wrong it just seems like such a remote =20 possibility. In order for them to do this they would have to stray =20 pretty far from their existing business. Even if they were to enter =20 the fray and offer a similar product it seems unlikely they would =20 choose to do so under the J-Security banner. I would imagine they =20 would they would create a new brand for this service since they =20 already have an unrelated presence under the name J-Security. =20 Repackaging their J-Security center into something unrelated wouldn't =20= make much sense. > > > Now, if you told me that we held our name longer than Juniper held =20 > theirs then it would be a different story. > > So to put it more succinctly, here are the criteria where I am happy =20= > 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 =20= > this > 2) If Juniper came out with a product under their service offering =20 > we would have nothing to worry about - I will only take an informed =20= > 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 =20 >>> of hyperbole to make my point. >>> >>> If some company who makes hand made woven baskets has had the name =20= >>> JSecurity there would be no problem. If that company decides to =20= >>> market a program that trains people in basket weaving written in =20 >>> java there would be no problem. >>> >>> However, other computer security companies have an earlier claim =20 >>> to JSecurity. If they decide the release a suite of java programs =20= >>> that performs security analysis then there's overlap. >>> >>> Why would we want to live in the grey area anyway? Am I =20 >>> 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 =20= >>>>> the >>>>> moment, I think any potential causes of conflict, given that =20 >>>>> 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 = >>>> > 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 = >>>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -1 Do not change JSecurity's name >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We had the discussion in early December on the legal mailing =20= >>>>>>>> list and no >>>>>>>> issues were raised contrary to Henri's comments. Henri is the =20= >>>>>>>> only board >>>>>>>> member who commented on the JSecurity name during the =20 >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will have at least three more votes where additional =20 >>>>>>>> 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 =20= >>>>>>>> incubator >>>>>>>> votes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear JSecurity Team, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There has been lengthy debate without consensus as to whether =20= >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> JSecurity's >>>>>>>> name should be changed to something else. So, there is need =20= >>>>>>>> for a vote. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please vote on changing JSecurity's name to something else. =20= >>>>>>>> This is ONLY >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> vote of if we should change the name, NOT what any alternate =20= >>>>>>>> name might >>>>>>>> be. >>>>>>>> I'd like to leave this vote open for 7 days instead of the =20 >>>>>>>> usual 3 to >>>>>>>> account for time that people may not be able to respond due =20 >>>>>>>> to the >>>>>>>> holidays. Of course we can close the vote early if all =20 >>>>>>>> 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 =20= >>>>>>>> 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 =20 >>>>>>>>> it's very >>>>>>>>> generic [jXxx being a common pattern in our space and =20 >>>>>>>>> Security being >>>>>>>>> very generic]; I'm inclined to keep the current name; though =20= >>>>>>>>> by the >>>>>>>>> same reasoning, it's a weak name as "Apache JSecurity" isn't =20= >>>>>>>>> very good >>>>>>>>> branding. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My tuppence of opinion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hen >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Les Hazlewood = >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi ASF legal team, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm writing this email in hopes of getting your feedback =20 >>>>>>>>>> concerning a >>>>>>>>>> discussion we've been having on the JSecurity email list =20 >>>>>>>>>> (an Incubator >>>>>>>>>> project). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A few of our mentors have expressed concern that there =20 >>>>>>>>>> might be a >>>>>>>>>> possible naming conflict with our project name (JSecurity) =20= >>>>>>>>>> and some >>>>>>>>>> other references found through google and other search =20 >>>>>>>>>> mechanisms. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to point out that the JSecurity name, as an open =20 >>>>>>>>>> source >>>>>>>>>> project identity has been around for almost 4 years now, =20 >>>>>>>>>> with zero >>>>>>>>>> contact from any external entity claiming conflict with a =20 >>>>>>>>>> proprietary >>>>>>>>>> name or product. I know this isn't legal criteria for =20 >>>>>>>>>> determining if >>>>>>>>>> there is a name conflict, but I surface it only to put some =20= >>>>>>>>>> context of >>>>>>>>>> why the original JSecurity developers (and our well-=20 >>>>>>>>>> established >>>>>>>>>> communities) think we should keep the JSecurity name. =20 >>>>>>>>>> There might be >>>>>>>>>> older references to this name, unrelated to our project, =20 >>>>>>>>>> but we don't >>>>>>>>>> know for certain if they would constitute a risk in the =20 >>>>>>>>>> name overlap. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We'd like some feedback as to if the project name should be =20= >>>>>>>>>> changed or >>>>>>>>>> not. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Here is what one of our mentors summarized after doing some =20= >>>>>>>>>> research: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Now, looking a bit forward on google, here are some other =20 >>>>>>>>>> references >>>>>>>>>> to JSecurity : >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://jwicglobal.com/Knowledge.htm >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "WIC GLOBAL has developed a comprehensive Information =20 >>>>>>>>>> Security >>>>>>>>>> Assessment service called JSecurity. Our JSecurity experts =20= >>>>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>>>> conduct a full information security risk assessment =20 >>>>>>>>>> focusing on:" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.juniper.net/security/ = >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Seems like they have a service called J-Security. Be sure =20= >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> Juniper has a legal service who might perfectly well send =20 >>>>>>>>>> some nicely >>>>>>>>>> written "cease and desist" letter to the ASF about this =20 >>>>>>>>>> name. Not sure >>>>>>>>>> that our legals want to deal with that ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> = http://www.jegers.com/dnn/Products/JPortfolio/tabid/83/Default.aspx >>>>>>>>>> = >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Another JSecurity... Seems to be around since 2/11/2005 (at =20= >>>>>>>>>> least) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> = http://www.powerlogic.com.br/powerportal/ecp/files.do?evento=3Ddownload&ur= lArqPlc=3Dfld_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 =20= >>>>>>>>>> are un >>>>>>>>>> potential jeopardy if we don't change its name. That's the =20= >>>>>>>>>> main issue >>>>>>>>>> we have : we can't afford any kind of legal action when we =20= >>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>> know that there are company out there which already use =20 >>>>>>>>>> this name. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I can be wrong, I'm just trying to gather as much =20 >>>>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>>>> as possible. When you guys think you have set your mind =20 >>>>>>>>>> about this >>>>>>>>>> name, you will have to go to legal@apache.org >>>>>>>>>> with the selected name (be it =20 >>>>>>>>>> JSecurity or >>>>>>>>>> any other) to double check that it's ok or not (IFAIK). =20 >>>>>>>>>> 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+Gra= duation+Requirements >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> = >>>>>>>>> >). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your review and feedback! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Les Hazlewood = >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adam, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks _very_ much for such a detailed and thoughtful =20 >>>>>>>>>>> opinion. I love >>>>>>>>>>> to see people who aren't necessarily code contributors =20 >>>>>>>>>>> contribute to >>>>>>>>>>> the project in other ways. This is very valuable to us. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am in total agreement with your sentiments thus far. It =20= >>>>>>>>>>> is my >>>>>>>>>>> opinion that the name we have is great as it is and I'd =20 >>>>>>>>>>> only like to >>>>>>>>>>> change the name if someone from legal puts pressure on us =20= >>>>>>>>>>> to do so. >>>>>>>>>>> IANAL, so I'd have to trust their judgment. I'm going to =20= >>>>>>>>>>> post this to >>>>>>>>>>> legal in just a few minutes asking their feedback. I'd =20 >>>>>>>>>>> like to hear >>>>>>>>>>> what they say regardless of what we end up doing - I'm =20 >>>>>>>>>>> genuinely >>>>>>>>>>> curious :) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again very much for chiming in. Its nice to see =20 >>>>>>>>>>> that you (and >>>>>>>>>>> others) are taking continued interest in the project. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Les >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM, adamtaft =20 >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not really a contributor to the JSecurity project yet =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> (though I >>>>>>>>>>>> hope to >>>>>>>>>>>> be in the future). However, this thread has caught my =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> attention, and >>>>>>>>>>>> so I >>>>>>>>>>>> thought I'd give a couple of thoughts. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have an interest, call it a hobby, in name related =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> issues for >>>>>>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>>>>>> projects, open source included. So, though I don't speak =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> from any >>>>>>>>>>>> official >>>>>>>>>>>> background (I guess beyond a little professional), I =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to >>>>>>>>>>>> point out >>>>>>>>>>>> a few things about the name Alcatraz. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> First, as I believe has been mentioned, the term Alcatraz =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> has been >>>>>>>>>>>> associated with other software products already. So, =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> this is bad >>>>>>>>>>>> news >>>>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>>>> regards to trademark related issues. Just because its a =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> geographic >>>>>>>>>>>> location >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that it can't be trademarked. Thus, likely =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> these other >>>>>>>>>>>> software products are going to have problems with any =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> related use of >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> term Alcatraz. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Second, the connotation for JSecurity implies that the =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> product is >>>>>>>>>>>> used >>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>> keep people out of the protected system. This is what =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> the term >>>>>>>>>>>> "security" >>>>>>>>>>>> implies, right? Alcatraz is a prison. It was NOT meant =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> out, >>>>>>>>>>>> it was meant to keep people in. The use is only quasi-=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> related, and >>>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>>> confusing, for a product with your feature set. Alcatraz =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>> a better name for a product which keeps workstation/=20 >>>>>>>>>>>> network users >>>>>>>>>>>> constrained in their internet use, like a firewall, or a =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> web proxy, >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>> example. Or a child internet monitoring product. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't underestimate the importance of this point. The =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> name of a >>>>>>>>>>>> software >>>>>>>>>>>> should ideally be somewhat self describing, especially =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> when starting >>>>>>>>>>>> out. >>>>>>>>>>>> Until the name becomes a core brand, having a self =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> describing name >>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>>>> a big difference. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Third, I don't think you can underestimate how important =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> it is that >>>>>>>>>>>> people >>>>>>>>>>>> can search the name of your product and find it through =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> Google (and >>>>>>>>>>>> friends). Clearly the term Alcatraz has a huge number of =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated >>>>>>>>>>>> hits, >>>>>>>>>>>> and you would clearly be lost any search engine placement =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>> name. >>>>>>>>>>>> Much better to have a name for your software that is the =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> only known >>>>>>>>>>>> reference so that people can easily find you after having =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> hear the >>>>>>>>>>>> name. >>>>>>>>>>>> This is why so many companies go crazy and conjure =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> completely strange >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> nonsensical product names. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fourth, Alcatraz is a relatively difficult name to spell, =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> which again >>>>>>>>>>>> becomes problematic for the above search recognition =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> reasons. >>>>>>>>>>>> Alkitraz? >>>>>>>>>>>> Some people simply won't know how to spell it immediately =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> (though >>>>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> is a >>>>>>>>>>>> minor point, admittedly). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fifth, it seems like you're making preparations for =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> something that >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>>>> even know to be a problem. Yes, the Apache legal team =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> should be >>>>>>>>>>>> consulted. >>>>>>>>>>>> However, it seems like jumping the gun to just start =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> changing package >>>>>>>>>>>> names >>>>>>>>>>>> with anticipation of a name change. You would be crazy =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> to start >>>>>>>>>>>> renaming >>>>>>>>>>>> packages based on some unknown possibility that it has to =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> happen in >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> future. What value does this add to the software? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Following the sigma-six and/or extreme programming world =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> view, you >>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>> be making any change to your software until the change is =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>>>>> required >>>>>>>>>>>> and value is added. Do you have a pending lawsuit? Has =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> the Apache >>>>>>>>>>>> council >>>>>>>>>>>> suggested the change? Are you being blocked by the =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> incubation >>>>>>>>>>>> process? >>>>>>>>>>>> Why >>>>>>>>>>>> even consider a change until it needs to be done. Energy =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> could be >>>>>>>>>>>> better >>>>>>>>>>>> spent on other matters. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's a trivial thing to refactor a project from =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> Eclipse. But, >>>>>>>>>>>> that's >>>>>>>>>>>> only a very small part of the bigger issue. Disruption, =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> confusion, >>>>>>>>>>>> support, >>>>>>>>>>>> search engine optimization, etc. are what needs to be =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> thought about >>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>> changing the name. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Further, what if you decide to change the name to =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> Alcatraz, and then >>>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>>> pressure from another software group? Ouch, time to =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> rename the >>>>>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>>>> yet >>>>>>>>>>>> again. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think you all are better just letting this thing ride =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> until >>>>>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>>>>> real >>>>>>>>>>>> convicting suggests you need a change. JSecurity is a =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> great product >>>>>>>>>>>> name >>>>>>>>>>>> which you should stick with until otherwise needed. And, =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> if that day >>>>>>>>>>>> comes, >>>>>>>>>>>> Alcatraz is just simply the wrong name, in my humble =20 >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Post to legal-discuss@a.o, ask them, but give them =20= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the names we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have googled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this needs to be vetted, so I'm happy to =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal-discuss. But, I can't easily find the thread =20= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> googled >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names. Could you please forward them on so I can =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> post them to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal team? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me suggest this. It seems to me that that =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alcatraz is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favorite, after jsecurity. Let's start setting up =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1.0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packages >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be alcatraz and when/if we get the go-ahead from =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legal and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incubator PMC we can change the packages to be =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jsecurity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I think then it's better to stick with JSecurity =20= >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already the name we use), ask to Legal, and move to =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alcatraz if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed (or any other name). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the first step, IMHO, is to ask Legal about the =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jsecurity name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (with all the infos we have already found about it), =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and also ask >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in the same mail if Alcatraz is ok or not (same =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 =20= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> give >>>>>>>>>>>>>> advice if there's a potential conflict, i.e. =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> JSecurity. So far as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can tell, there is none for alcatraz. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I'm worried about is that the vetting effort for =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the JSecurity >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name will have the same track record as the v0.9 =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release. If we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> start >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with alcatraz then we have one less thing impeding our =20= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> process. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's start with Alcratraz then, and we have quit some =20 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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=E9charny >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 =20= >>>>>>>>>>>> Nabble.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> = --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and =20 >>>>>>>>> educational >>>>>>>>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not >>>>>>>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the =20= >>>>>>>>> opinions >>>>>>>>> and policies of the ASF. See >>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --Apple-Mail-7-8270105 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGITCCAtow ggJDoAMCAQICECrGtO4cGI/rnblmE9dOIxQwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkEx JTAjBgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQ ZXJzb25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMB4XDTA4MDYyMDAwMDAwOFoXDTA5MDYyMDAwMDAw OFowQjEfMB0GA1UEAxMWVGhhd3RlIEZyZWVtYWlsIE1lbWJlcjEfMB0GCSqGSIb3DQEJARYQdGp2 ZWlsQGdtYWlsLmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALTP5KEiqKamEyeP qf5NQ2pI2AdTvJG6lKflV4uEFjTkZAFwMwp+CMnrgHTwMt/HHvUnUaPvB/PqLYZKsXR6pBquu4Qk 52cQItajQIaPJ9gjGObMU59Aapgk7yHDiQAiVTz2/nFL4O69aoW3F/lNHBAHOIuLzkkkqMMvbmoZ NSmKwPx43O9MYaw1LU4nz8FPC8JRh9G734K0F7x4YHwUJ+YgVfUr4JhPT63gtMV4UgOq8L59Mj6+ ZeLJEIcnW7oSD+oxQ7lAOvVu23xPA2l5IXNUQQU6JFCqf+pcFCdNcEjenazDI/1BR6NIOlpeaTqZ IZ7tZUqfmWGa54q4OcE8qkECAwEAAaMtMCswGwYDVR0RBBQwEoEQdGp2ZWlsQGdtYWlsLmNvbTAM BgNVHRMBAf8EAjAAMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4GBAFJCp/bgmdBQmqG6IH9z5TeaF0xhOyAOyUyV 2mUKeVU7uzGwMr15YFPEGkI8HsOheHADluS2ilyMuNaG47LELbrdSZfxnr5AovLuDl0ZNFY+ZNP1 WJiBZHL6R9gwURTS9EspeMINB4UDzCjLZM63j/D9nP+G3WdJgvOjJHaWU79qMIIDPzCCAqigAwIB AgIBDTANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCB0TELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExFTATBgNVBAgTDFdlc3Rlcm4gQ2Fw ZTESMBAGA1UEBxMJQ2FwZSBUb3duMRowGAYDVQQKExFUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZzEoMCYGA1UE CxMfQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBTZXJ2aWNlcyBEaXZpc2lvbjEkMCIGA1UEAxMbVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNv bmFsIEZyZWVtYWlsIENBMSswKQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhxwZXJzb25hbC1mcmVlbWFpbEB0aGF3dGUu Y29tMB4XDTAzMDcxNzAwMDAwMFoXDTEzMDcxNjIzNTk1OVowYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNV BAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25h bCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBMIGfMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4GNADCBiQKBgQDEpjxVc1X7 TrnKmVoeaMB1BHCd3+n/ox7svc31W/Iadr1/DDph8r9RzgHU5VAKMNcCY1osiRVwjt3J8CuFWqo/ cVbLrzwLB+fxH5E2JCoTzyvV84J3PQO+K/67GD4Hv0CAAmTXp6a7n2XRxSpUhQ9IBH+nttE8YQRA HmQZcmC3+wIDAQABo4GUMIGRMBIGA1UdEwEB/wQIMAYBAf8CAQAwQwYDVR0fBDwwOjA4oDagNIYy aHR0cDovL2NybC50aGF3dGUuY29tL1RoYXd0ZVBlcnNvbmFsRnJlZW1haWxDQS5jcmwwCwYDVR0P BAQDAgEGMCkGA1UdEQQiMCCkHjAcMRowGAYDVQQDExFQcml2YXRlTGFiZWwyLTEzODANBgkqhkiG 9w0BAQUFAAOBgQBIjNFQg+oLLswNo2asZw9/r6y+whehQ5aUnX9MIbj4Nh+qLZ82L8D0HFAgk3A8 /a3hYWLD2ToZfoSxmRsAxRoLgnSeJVCUYsfbJ3FXJY3dqZw5jowgT2Vfldr394fWxghOrvbqNOUQ Gls1TXfjViF4gtwhGTXeJLHTHUb/XV9lTzGCAxAwggMMAgEBMHYwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAj BgNVBAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJz b25hbCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAhAqxrTuHBiP6525ZhPXTiMUMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggFv MBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTA5MDExMjAwMDIyMFow IwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFF9k+vjkAD7NzKgd3BcpfT8W4IvIMIGFBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxeDB2MGIx CzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYD VQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIQKsa07hwYj+uduWYT104j FDCBhwYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxeKB2MGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29u c3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNz dWluZyBDQQIQKsa07hwYj+uduWYT104jFDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAASCAQBmio706OebvSIgMxcw Wpu+W2S3pqQ7+3cDTFNlNWy47KKifT8wnU7DCEA3IlBadkN8j5C6wjNe14bIIH4A/QPkR9JpD9p7 QmfkO9CK5OUN9YUGAaxxeLCSSlVKxo4mkSh4DvFlGRWawY53QUoBHznLWQFlFG1fQIGQsdg+Xfyq TFhxzsKm8hGxnq7dg6Zsc9H/r+0bdp6pliwUk+o3HKd8GjK8B0eDOG3YzANHvSFuwuJij7eaQs/7 ONvlqGF4KUlfAKhqIeKMPWjkPBapB+VYwTFwSWf5abgvypfxvFkid3nhVg3L6HHcSzqlK9UT/bSd vSeWhHCtlEPWBll9pTT/AAAAAAAA --Apple-Mail-7-8270105--