I am just a peanut in the peanut gallery, but if I wanted to create a competing product based on OpenMiracl, I would feel disadvantaged by the MIRACL brand because every time I attributed OpenMiracl it would be remind folks of your brand.
Maybe you can name your Apache project something like “GoodDeed" since good deeds often lead to a Miracle, but can lead elsewhere. The point really is, by brainstorming on a new project name, I would expect someone will come up with a great idea. -Alex On 11/17/15, 3:06 PM, "Brian Spector" <brian.spec...@miracl.com> wrote: >Hi Shane, > >given your role, I'm hoping you can make some suggestions to help us out >of >this bind so we can move forward. It would really be appreciated. > >As stated previously, 'OpenMiracl: A cryptosystem for cloud computing' is >a >'proposed' Apache Project / platform name. MIRACL is the name of the >company contributing most of the initial code out of the gate, along with >NTT and a few others. > >The main product we sell is a Datacenter Cryptosystem. Any development >work >we do goes directly into the project, and our business is to sell a >supported, documented, QA'd, certified to run on different OS's, etc., >version of this platform, i.e., the Datacenter Cryptosystem. > >In addition, we will offer community (free, no restriction to connect to), >and dedicated, Distributed Trust Authority services (as part of the DC >subscription). > >It's important to note that anyone can and should be able to make a >business out of running a Distributed Trust Authority, and NTT, Experian, >and others plan on running community Distributed Trust Authorities to >support the project on launch. > >We have customers such as Experian, the UK government, NTT and others >already using components from the Datacenter Cryptosystem in production at >scale, so it's possibly more mature than some other incubation projects >have been when starting. > >That's the plan. > >Here is the history, which I think deserves special consideration rather >than a blanket "no". > >The "Miracl' name has been trademarked, etc. and we are happy to bequeath, >co-assign, etc., do what we have to do make that good so that the Miracl >name somehow is associated with the project. > >This is a special circumstance given the historical nature of the name >MIRACL. This name has household name recognition amongst professional >cryptographers. It's been a well known cryptographic library for embedded >/ >constrained (IoT before IoT) device environments since 1991. > >You will find the Miracl crypto library in everything from IoT devices to >mobile chips, handsets, software applications and beyond. The closed >source >licensees range from Intel, Google, Microsoft, ARM, Siemens, etc. > >We want the generation of professional cryptographers who know MIRACL >library to know that this is part of the larger 'OpenMiracl: cryptosystem >for cloud computing' platform. The success of this project depends on >getting this group (cryptographers) involved. They are not an easy >audience >to connect with. > >We are bequeathing components from this library, which had been AGPL with >closed source option, to Apache Foundation as part of the wider software >stack that goes with OpenMiracl: A cryptosystem for cloud computing. > >What do you suggest we do? Do you think it's worth it given the history to >dump the 'MIRACL' name from the project? > >I can't speak to the bad decisions that were made regarding past >alliterations but I would hate to see the historical circumstance not be >considered in the overall view. > >Thanks >Brian > >On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> >wrote: > >> Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/11/15 12:42 AM: >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Nick Kew <n...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >>> The ASF project called OpenMiracl and Certivox/MIRACL continuing to >> use the >> >>> MIRACL mark would seem to muddy the water between the two. Would >>this >> not >> >>> disadvantage others building something based on OpenMiracl? >> >> Merely adding "Open" to "Miracl" does not really make them separate >> brands, so if they both existed as the same kind of functionality, it >> would be a clear problem. >> >> >> >> >> Isn't it the same distinction as Mesos vs Mesosphere? >> > >> > Or, sadly, CouchBase and CouchDB. Not contesting the name Mesosphere >> > was a mistake, just as not contesting CouchBase was a mistake. I hope >> > we do not keep making the same mistake. >> >> Indeed, you should not draw conclusions or future actions from >> individual past branding questions like those two, nor from how some >> Subversion projects by third parties are branded - some of those cases >> cited in this thread are... not optimal. >> >> - Shane >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
