Hi Alex, thank you for the suggestion, but from our point of view, as I outlined below, we would disadvantage the project as a whole by not having the MIRACL name in it.
At the same time, I completely understand the concern that a company who creates a product based on OpenMiracl might feel themselves disadvantaged by having to state an attribution 'based on Apache OpenMiracl' while MIRACL, the company, sells a product called Datacenter Cryptosystem will also say 'based on Apache OpenMiracl'. We get that. On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > 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 >
