The 7 day time frame has passed. This vote is closed. The final result: 3 +1 binding votes, 1 -1 binding vote.
The vote summary is as follows: +1 votes for changing the name: Alan Cabrera (mentor, binding) Alex Karasulu (mentor, binding) Emmanuel Lecharny (mentor, binding) -1 votes for changing the name: Craig Russell (mentor, binding) Tim Veil (team member, non-binding) Jeremy Haile (team member, non-binding) Les Hazlewood (team member, non-binding) Peter Ledbrook (team member, non-binding) Alan Ditzel (team member, non-binding) Niklas Guvstavsson (non-binding) Joshua Partogi (non-binding) On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Allan Ditzel <[email protected]> wrote: > [ 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! >> > >> > >> >
