I spent quite a bit of time this weekend seeing how pervasive the JSecurity name as related to our project - presentation videos, publicly referenced projects, open source sourcecode that integrates with ours, blogosphere, commercial products built on top of it, etc, etc. It is a strong name and many people directly reference it. They know what it is.
I just don't think there's anything better than JSecurity. I also agree with Craig and Jeremy that any of the matches we've found with a similar name are 1) Not sufficiently close to JSecurity's domain and not a risk 2) If they are close to JSecurity's domain of Java-based security, they arrived _after_ we did (see below). 2) Anything with J*Security is not a product, just names of web pages or contractions of other non-related names J(uniper) Security, J(WIC) Security, etc. No product or project conflict. 3) JSecurity's almost 4 year history has been long enough for anyone with a potential gripe to at least raise an ounce of concern; we've been the #1 hit from Google's search results for over 3 years, and the last year we've held all but 1 or 2 of the entire first page's results. 4) * There are NO patent or trademark filings with the token "JSecurity" appearing anywhere in them. Again, IANAL, but I think this is enough to keep the name. We've got a really strong base on the current name. People like it. Anyone who does a google search finds years of history with it. I don't think anyone in our project or our end user community would mind changing the name if anyone outside of our community actually filed an actual legal cease-and-desist. Until then, I just don't think it is worth the effort or the time to go through the change process. If we ever see the actual legal need to do it, we could make the change quickly enough. But, given our history for the last 4 years, I just don't see this ever happening in practice. But, just for completeness, let's look at the only 4 points that were brought up as potential conflicts: 1. 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:" In this case, JSecurity for them is a contraction of 'JWIC Security'. This company deals with security compliance for financial institutions as a consulting service - not a software product. In any event, our JSecurity project was a well-established project on sourceforge before they came up with this idea. 2. http://www.juniper.net/security/ <http://www.juniper.net/security/> Seems like they have a service called J-Security. This is the one of two potential conflicts that *could* lay claim to having some semblance of J and Security being used together before our project was founded on Source Forge. However this is a contraction for J(uniper) Security, and the resulting 'artifact' is an online resource/knowledge center, not software product/project related. They're a hardware company, and I don't see this as overlap at all. That they might venture into software some day, and be it Java Software at that, I think is an incredibly low possibility. Even if they did (and that's a big if), we still have grounds for showing our unrelated software project existed first. IANAL, but that's my take on it. 3. 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) This is the other one of two potential conflicts that *could* lay claim to existing before our software project. This company however, deals with software related to financial securities, and has nothing to do with java or software/system security in any way. No conflict at all there. 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 ? Their "jSecurity" is a contraction for "jCompany Security". Their solution does looks to be java based and software security related. But it is not the name of a product they're trying to sell. It is something that is 'part of' their other product(s). But although I can't find it on their website, this is definitely a new surfacing with this name for them as a company. That is, our JSecurity software project has been around a LOT longer than them. In fact, their website says they use quite a bit of software from Jakarta and SourceForge - it might be very possible their product could actually sit on TOP of our framework, which may be a reason why they chose that name. In any event, we've been around longer and can probably lay claim to 'prior art'. All of this being said, if our IPMC members say with consensus something to the effect of: "Odds are very low there wold ever be conflict, but we still desire a name change, Just In Case", then of course I'll abide by this. I just don't think there is enough evidence that it would be necessary though. Once again, these are only my opinions - I'll do whatever it takes to make our software project a viable long-term project successful with a healthy community at the ASF. If a name change is required to achieve this, then fine, but I was hoping for a significant feeling of consensus before we went down that road, that's all. Respectfully, Les On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's my take and I'm not intransigent on this. I'll use a bit of > hyperbole to make my point. > > If some company who makes hand made woven baskets has had the name JSecurity > there would be no problem. If that company decides to market a program > that trains people in basket weaving written in java there would be no > problem. > > However, other computer security companies have an earlier claim to > JSecurity. If they decide the release a suite of java programs that > performs security analysis then there's overlap. > > Why would we want to live in the grey area anyway? Am I 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 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! >>>> >>>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > >
