[Foundation] Jabber is the protocol

Mathew Johnston johnston at megaepic.com
Thu May 17 14:39:15 CDT 2001


Well, Jabber.com is willing to give MOST control over the Jabber trademark to
the foundation, with the restriction that the word Jabber can't be used in
commercial product names or company names. (at least, that's what they're
suggesting). They also seem to be willing to contractually agree that these
rights given to the foundation can not be revoked at a later date.

Mathew Johnston

On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:21:32PM -0500, Colin Madere wrote:
> 
> I did not say that, I was just trying to simply identify the problem (and no
> go into bloated rhetoric about trademarks).  
> 
> However, I think you've identified the only options available to us.
> 
> Shall I distil once again?
> 
> Protocol name == "Jabber" (developed, adopted and supported by open-source
> community)
> jabber.com trademark == "Jabber" (commercial, controlling entity)
> 
> Only two options I see are:
> 
> 1) Change Protocol Name
> 2) Jabber.com sells trademark
> 
> Neither option is great for both parties.  Somebody has to swallow the lump
> and take the hit, and in this country it's almost NEVER the corporation.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Metral [mailto:Max.Metral at peoplepchq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:10 PM
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol
> 
> 
> Ok I hate to be blunt but it sure sounds like what we're saying is:
> 
> *) The Foundation wishes to purchase the rights to Jabber back from
> Jabber.com
> *) If Jabber.com refuses, we'll change the name.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Colin Madere [mailto:colin at vedalabs.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:02 PM
> To: 'members at jabber.org'
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol
> 
> 
> I agree with DJ that we MUST remember (though some people in this discussion
> don't seem to have been around long enough to understand fully) that
> "Jabber" is the name of the _protocol_.  The fact that it's easy to say and
> works in a product name is awfully nice (unlike HTTP or the like), and
> that's why this situation seems to be unique.
> Jabber.com's products are "Jabber Commercial Server" and "Jabber Instant
> Messenger".  So essentially, they've trademarked the name of the protocol,
> and that's a problem for the community.
> Another note:  How silly does "Powered by HTTP" or "Powered by TCP/IP"
> sound?  It doesn't even really make technical sense.  I don't think having
> everyone (except Jabber.com) use "Powered by Jabber" is a good solution.  I
> think "Jabber compliant" is more appropriate if far less catchy.
> That's right.. I'm merely trying to clarify the problem.. I have no solution
> that keeps Jabber.com happy.  (Although I do believe that the Jabber
> Foundation should have say-so over what is done with the name "Jabber")
> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: DJ Adams [mailto:dj.adams at pobox.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:27 AM 
> > To: members at jabber.org 
> > Subject: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello all 
> > 
> > I'd like to add my 2p to this discussion. I came to the 
> > Jabber world without 
> > any real concept of IM - I'd heard of it (ICQ, AIM and so on) 
> > but never used 
> > any of the clients or services. I saw Jabber as an XML 
> > messaging platform. 
> > The whole philosophy of Jabber being, representing, the idea 
> > of async sending 
> > and receiving of XML-based payloads, whether for IM or other 
> > purposes, was 
> > and still is the main attraction for me. 
> > 
> > To me, and everyone I've evangelised to, Jabber is the 
> > protocol and the 
> > philosophy. There just happens to be a server implementation that is 
> > commonly referred to as the 'Jabber server' (the 
> > implementation and the 
> > protocol being the same thing at the moment is a separate 
> > issue - not for 
> > discussion here ;-). 
> > 
> > I feel strongly that we should not dilute or weaken Jabber's 
> > drive into the 
> > world by changing its name (by its I'm referring to the 
> > protocol, approach 
> > and philosophy) mid-stream, if you will forgive the pun. The split of 
> > protocol and implementation shows us a way that is sensible: 
> > retain the name 
> > Jabber for the protocol and have a server implementation 
> > called Jabelin, 
> > that implements the protocol. 
> > 
> > We have a huge advantage in (non-commercial) branding here in 
> > that we don't 
> > have to bridge the gap between the 'real' name (like HTTP) 
> > and the 'public' 
> > name (like 'Web') - Jabber is both right now. Which is great! 
> > 
> > To rename the protocol to something acronymic (hey, I like 
> > that word) would 
> > be a backward step, IMHO. 
> > 
> > I know this issue is intertwined with the jabber.com TM 
> > issue, but I'm trying 
> > to see it separately, because I can only think of one thing at once. 
> > 
> > Jabber is /more/ than IM, as we all know. And to say we 
> > should change the 
> > name to rid us of that mantle (jabber.com might not want to 
> > do this anyway) 
> > is doing a disservice to where people have brought Jabber as 
> > an idea thus 
> > far. 
> > 
> > So, I guess to sum up, I'm strongly of the opinion that the 
> > name Jabber should 
> > be used for the protocol and philosophy. For jer's vision. 
> > And for the reality 
> > of that vision. 
> > 
> > If we use Jabber for the protocol, we have less of an issue 
> > with branding 
> > of clients and servers (witness Jabelin), and I think the 
> > moniker "Powered 
> > by Jabber" is rather good. 
> > 
> > Anyway, just my opinion 
> > 
> > Cheers 
> > dj 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Members mailing list 
> > Members at jabber.org 
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members 
> > 



More information about the Members mailing list