Sorry for the double post - I originally cc'd to legal@ instead of legal-discuss@ and that failed. I had to resend.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> wrote: > Great idea. But would this be something that one of the folks in > legal@ would want to formulate? Or should it be one of us 'regular > joes' just asking a question? I've cc'd Legal to see what they > recommend.... > > Cheers, > > Les > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Tim Veil <[email protected]> wrote: >> Its not a bad idea. It could be one of those things that they are unlikely >> to care about unless specifically asked to care, but it would certainly put >> an end to the discussion. >> >> Tim >> >> On Jan 11, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote: >> >>> Tim Veil wrote: >>>> >>>> I guess my take is that >>>> JSecurity has been in the name of this project for nearly 4 years without >>>> compliant >>>> JSecurity has name recognition and a following >>>> The project of concern, "J-Security" is not a product at all but rather a >>>> " resource for security information and analysis." >>>> J-Security's parent company Juniper is in the network hardware business >>>> not the Java application business >>>> JSecurity is an open-source software project not a "product" we are >>>> looking to sell (not a competitor in any way to Juniper) >>> >>> Just a suggestion : why don't someone contact Juniper legals and ask if >>> they see JSecurity as an acceptable name for us ? That would close this long >>> thread, I think. >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> cordialement, regards, >>> Emmanuel Lécharny >>> www.iktek.com >>> directory.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> >
