On Jan 11, 2009, at 5:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jan 11, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Tim Veil wrote:I guess my take is thatJSecurity has been in the name of this project for nearly 4 years without compliantSorry, I'm not following. Unless Juniper has held the name for three years or less, how is that relevant?
I guess I'm suggesting that JSecurity has been out in the wild for 4 years. At no time during this period has Juniper been concerned about name collision enough to contact anyone on the project. That suggests to me they will be unlikely to do so in the future. I have no idea how long they have been using their name.
JSecurity has name recognition and a followingSorry, I don't understand if this is pertinent other than it being motivation for keeping the name. I also am motivated to keep the name but I don't see how we can get past the issues below.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)It doesn't matter if we sell a product or not. It's a name collision, albeit a potential collision. If they chose to push out a product under that name we would be in trouble; if I am wrong here someone please tell me.
I don't think you are wrong it just seems like such a remote possibility. In order for them to do this they would have to stray pretty far from their existing business. Even if they were to enter the fray and offer a similar product it seems unlikely they would choose to do so under the J-Security banner. I would imagine they would they would create a new brand for this service since they already have an unrelated presence under the name J-Security. Repackaging their J-Security center into something unrelated wouldn't make much sense.
Now, if you told me that we held our name longer than Juniper held theirs then it would be a different story.So to put it more succinctly, here are the criteria where I am happy to change my vote. Any single one would work for me.
Would you change your vote if I use the magic word? Please?
1) We held the name longer than Juniper - I'll take anyone's word on this 2) If Juniper came out with a product under their service offering we would have nothing to worry about - I will only take an informed opinionI'm guessing that the others would change their vote as well. Regards, AlanOn Jan 11, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Alan D. Cabrera 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 areNO trademark or patent conflicts, are dubious at best. Cheers, LesOn 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 nameWe 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 regardingthe 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 incubatorvotes. Craig Dear JSecurity Team,There has been lengthy debate without consensus as to whether orJSecurity'sname 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 ONLYavote of if we should change the name, NOT what any alternate name mightbe.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 areaccounted for prior to the 7 day limit.The vote is open for the next 7 days and only votes from the JSecuritydevelopment 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 goodbranding. My tuppence of opinion. HenOn 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 Incubatorproject).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 ornot.Here is what one of our mentors summarized after doing some research:<snip>Now, looking a bit forward on google, here are some other referencesto 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 surethat 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 thisname, 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 ofthe 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, LesOn 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 tothe 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 genuinelycurious :)Thanks again very much for chiming in. Its nice to see that you (andothers) are taking continued interest in the project. Best regards, LesOn 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 Ihope tobe in the future). However, this thread has caught my attention, andso I thought I'd give a couple of thoughts.I have an interest, call it a hobby, in name related issues forsoftwareprojects, open source included. So, though I don't speak from anyofficialbackground (I guess beyond a little professional), I would like topoint 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 badnews withregards to trademark related issues. Just because its a geographiclocationdoesn't mean that it can't be trademarked. Thus, likely these other software products are going to have problems with any related use ofthe term Alcatraz.Second, the connotation for JSecurity implies that the product isused tokeep people out of the protected system. This is what the term"security"implies, right? Alcatraz is a prison. It was NOT meant to keeppeople out,it was meant to keep people in. The use is only quasi- related, andevenconfusing, for a product with your feature set. Alcatraz softwarewould bea 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 asoftwareshould ideally be somewhat self describing, especially when startingout.Until the name becomes a core brand, having a self describing namecan make a big difference.Third, I don't think you can underestimate how important it is thatpeoplecan search the name of your product and find it through Google (and friends). Clearly the term Alcatraz has a huge number of unrelatedhits,and you would clearly be lost any search engine placement with thename.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 thename.This is why so many companies go crazy and conjure completely strangeand 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 (thoughthis is a minor point, admittedly).Fifth, it seems like you're making preparations for something thatyou don'teven know to be a problem. Yes, the Apache legal team should beconsulted.However, it seems like jumping the gun to just start changing packagenameswith anticipation of a name change. You would be crazy to startrenamingpackages based on some unknown possibility that it has to happen inthe future. What value does this add to the software?Following the sigma-six and/or extreme programming world view, youshouldn'tbe making any change to your software until the change is actuallyrequiredand value is added. Do you have a pending lawsuit? Has the Apachecouncilsuggested the change? Are you being blocked by the incubationprocess? Whyeven consider a change until it needs to be done. Energy could bebetter spent on other matters.Yes, it's a trivial thing to refactor a project from Eclipse. But,that'sonly a very small part of the bigger issue. Disruption, confusion,support,search engine optimization, etc. are what needs to be thought aboutwhen changing the name.Further, what if you decide to change the name to Alcatraz, and thengetpressure from another software group? Ouch, time to rename theproject yet again.I think you all are better just letting this thing ride untilsomething realconvicting suggests you need a change. JSecurity is a great productnamewhich you should stick with until otherwise needed. And, if that daycomes,Alcatraz is just simply the wrong name, in my humble opinion, for allthe 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 wehave 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 thegooglednames. Could you please forward them on so I can post them tothe legal team?Let me suggest this. It seems to me that that alcatraz is theclearfavorite, after jsecurity. Let's start setting up the 1.0packagesto 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 (becauseit'salready the name we use), ask to Legal, and move to alcatraz ifneeded (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 : addsome 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 onlygiveadvice if there's a potential conflict, i.e. JSecurity. So far asI 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 westartwith alcatraz then we have one less thing impeding our incubationprocess.Let's start with Alcratraz then, and we have quit some time to dosome 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.htmlSent from the JSecurity Developer mailing list archive at Nabble.com.---------------------------------------------------------------------DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educationalonly. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do notconstitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/ licenses/> forofficial 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]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
