The only one that I feel like would make sense, that didn't have name/patent conflicts, is Apache Ki.
Its a very short name, so that's kinda nice (domain name, packages, etc). And there is a lot of room for graphics/branding - since it is pronounced "key", lots can be done to tie in to the security theme. That's a rather elegant middle ground I think would work nicely for a security framework. To me, nothing else out there that I've heard thus far (that also doesn't have naming conflicts) sounds better than Ki or JSecurity. What do you think Jeremy - do you think Ki might be good enough to supplant the JSecurity name? On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Jeremy Haile <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we do need to put some concrete plan in place here, so I think a > vote is in order. > > I support changing the name, if we come up with a name that we like. > Unfortunately, I don't like most of the ideas that haven't already shown to > be in conflict with some project out there. I did like Apache Fortress, > Stronghold, and Shield, but I think these could be more problematic than > JSecurity. > > Given that, I'd prefer to leave the name as it is until we come up with > something that has more popular support. We do need to go ahead and > repackage everything, so this question is holding up a lot of work. Let's > make a decision! > > Jeremy > > > > On Dec 27, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > > As this needs to be clearly resolved before we exit the Incubator, I >> believe >> that we have 2 questions that we need to vote on formally: >> >> 1. Will JSecurity be renamed? >> 2. If so, what will that new name be? >> >> Should we start a vote for #1, and depending on its outcome, then have a >> vote for #2? >> >> I surface #1 because I don't think we as a team reached a clear consensus >> as >> to whether or not we must do that. I'd like to just formalize that intent >> in a vote just to make it absolutely clear. >> >> The only feedback we got from Legal about retaining the JSecurity name was >> from Henri Yandell: >> >> "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." >> >> indicating that Legal apparently doesn't perceive a naming conflict (no >> one >> else made any comments in over 2 weeks). If that is the case, it appears >> the decision is left to the project team, which seems like a vote would be >> in order. >> >> Please note that I have no ulterior motive in kicking this thread off - >> I've >> become quite accustomed to one or two of the other proposed names and have >> no problems using them if the team decides that is the appropriate course >> of >> action. I'm just trying to resolve both of these two questions >> definitively >> before next month's board report, which is coming up very soon. >> >> What should we do next? >> >> - Les >> > >
