That was sort of the point though. Web 2.0y names are always obscure, specifically because they don't have any existing name conflicts. Twitter, Hadoop, Gump, etc, etc. They are purposefully obscure. In JSecurity's case, there wasn't a single English language security word that we felt was viable that wasn't already taken or in use, so we had to resort to obscure names.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Ben <[email protected]> wrote: > I second that. Ki was just downright obscure. > > Ben > > > Tim Veil wrote: > >> for what its worth, I think Apache Security or Apache Security API sounds >> pretty darn cool. If I were evaluating security frameworks, i would put >> this framework at the top of the list because of the apache name alone. >> the name is direct, self explanatory and permanently fixed to a fairly >> recognizable brand ;) >> >> Tim >> >> >> On Mar 12, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote: >> >> Kalle Korhonen wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny < >>>> [email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Is it up for a bet? >>>> >>> It was just a joke :) >>> >>>> I'm just saying that if that thread was the only >>>> discussion on it, it looked indecisive. If Les had more private >>>> discussion >>>> with the company's representatives then it'd be entirely different >>>> matter. >>>> Have you or anybody asked ASF legal? If legal is not available for >>>> exactly >>>> these types of questions, then I don't know what its purpose is. >>>> >>>> Just FYI, it's now more than two months we are discussing about this >>> name issue. If we decided to switch from JSecurity to Ki, it was because >>> Juniper Computer is already using J-Security. It appears that the >>> FlyerWhatever company is also using Ki, and they made us know about it. >>> >>> I don't want to rehash the hundred (almost) of mails exchanged, but be >>> sure we already asked Legal about that, and Legal don't care, unless we get >>> sued. Legal don't have the time nor the men to deal with name collision. >>> It's up to us to find a name unlikely to be jeopardized by an existing name. >>> >>> We thought that Ki was safe, and agreed about it. Bad move, and this is >>> very unfortunate. But in any case, we don't have time nor money to start a >>> dispute about the Ki name, and it's more likely that we would lost less time >>> discussing about a new name than trying to unforce the existing one. >>> >>> I'm not pleased at all about this situation, trust me on that. >>> >>> PS: http://www.apache.org/legal/. This will give you some info about >>> what Legal is about. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> cordialement, regards, >>> Emmanuel Lécharny >>> www.iktek.com >>> directory.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >> >
