[ X ] -1 Do not change JSecurity's name That's my non-binding vote for the time being. :)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected] > > > >> 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 <[email protected]> > >>>> 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 [email protected] > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> > >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 Lécharny > >>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>>> > >>> > >>> Craig L Russell > >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > Craig L Russell > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > > 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > > > > >
