incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] OpenMiracl for Incubation
Date Tue, 17 Nov 2015 23:38:50 GMT
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.


On 11/17/15, 3:06 PM, "Brian Spector" <> wrote:

>Hi Shane,
>given your role, I'm hoping you can make some suggestions to help us out
>this bind so we can move forward. It would really be appreciated.
>As stated previously, 'OpenMiracl: A cryptosystem for cloud computing' is
>'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
>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
>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
>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
>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.
>On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Shane Curcuru <>
>> Marvin Humphrey wrote on 11/11/15 12:42 AM:
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Nick Kew <> 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
>> 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:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:
View raw message