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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Post to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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.
Regards,
Alan
