There is no list called [EMAIL PROTECTED] Perhaps you meant either [EMAIL PROTECTED] (publicly archived) or [EMAIL PROTECTED] (private)?
--- On Fri, 7/25/08, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: JSecurity name "collisions" > To: "JSecurity Developer List" <jsecurity-dev@incubator.apache.org> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 10:10 AM > Um, I couldn't send mail to that email address (cc'd > infrastructure to see > if it is related to Apache email servers again). I got an > immediate > bounce-back: > > "This is an automatically generated Delivery Status > Notification > > Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Technical details of permanent failure: > Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected > by the recipient > domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider > for further > information about the cause of this error. The error that > the other server > returned was: 550 550 mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] not accepted > here (state > 14)." > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Les Hazlewood > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've CCd them to see what feedback they may have. > How do we ensure that we > > can use the name? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Les > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> it would be a good idea to run the question by > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> > >>> Yep, we've seen these before, but the good > thing is that they're not > >>> related > >>> in form or function to our project so there > shouldn't be any legal > >>> conflict > >>> at least (IANAL, but I think that's the > case). Since the joomla product > >>> has > >>> been renamed, I don't think there's > any issue there. Also the juniper > >>> product is named slightly different to J - > dash - Security, so they're > >>> not > >>> an exact overlap. This coupled with the > different target of their focus > >>> (totally different than ours), I think that > makes things 'safe'. > >>> > >>> Plus in the last 3 or so years, I'm sure > they've seen us (just do any > >>> search > >>> engine lookup for 'jsecurity' and > we're always number one), but no one > >>> has > >>> ever contacted us about naming conflicts. > I'm fairly sure they don't > >>> care - > >>> if they would have, they'd have said > something by now... > >>> > >>> At least that's my take on it :) > >>> > >>> I wonder if should investigate purchasing a > registered trademark just in > >>> case... > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Alan D. > Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> I searched on Google and found these > companies using the JSecurity name: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > http://www.juniper.net/security/index.html?from=HomePage-Header-to-JSecurity > >>>> > http://joomlaequipment.com/content/view/1/4/ > >>>> > >>>> The latter looks like the JSecurity > product got absorbed into a product > >>>> called JDefender. We'll probably need > to do a more thorough search. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Alan > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -- > >> cordialement, regards, > >> Emmanuel Lécharny > >> www.iktek.com > >> directory.apache.org > >> > >> > >> > >
