[Foundation] Jabber is the protocol

Max Metral Max.Metral at PEOPLEPCHQ.COM
Thu May 17 14:54:51 CDT 2001

But if the commercial limitation is enforced, isn't that counterproductive
to the foundation?  So say PeoplePC wants to use Jabber.  Our product name
won't be Jabber, but wouldn't the Foundation WANT us to be able to say
powered by Jabber or Jabber compatible or whatever?  And isn't Jabber.com
saying we would have to pay for that right?
How much do we think we're talking about here for the cost of acquiring and
"legalizing" the Jabber trademark?

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Madere [mailto:colin at vedalabs.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 3:45 PM
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol

They were not first, though.. part of the problem.  Jer / jabber.org were

Agreed.. the name "Jabber" is too cool for it's own good :) and currently
(unfortunately) it stands for more than the protocol.  Maybe it won't be a
problem (my company has no plans to put "Jabber" in the name of the product
and may not even put a "powered by Jabber" type thing on it, but will
certainly list that it complies with the Jabber protocol or uses some
"Jabber technology", just in case any of you out there were under the
impression I was arguing for my company's benefit).

Colin Madere 
Vedalabs, Inc. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Martin Rogard [ mailto:martin at vibes.net <mailto:martin at vibes.net> ] 
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:36 PM 
To: members at jabber.org 
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol 

I agree with you but I think it's Jabber.com interest that the Open-Source
movement keeps Jabber name... 
The solution of Protocol name change won't be a good deal for them (IMHO).
When I write: 
'Powered by Jabber' on my box I actually do free advertising for Jabber.Com.
Same for all clients/products/server based on Jabber... So I hope they will
understand our concerns. Jabber.Com interest is the success of Jabber, if
Jabber succeeds there is not doubt they will benefit from that. Hey they are
the first !

In fact problem is Jabber name is too great :-) 

- martin 

-----Original Message----- 
From: members-admin at jabber.org [ mailto:members-admin at jabber.org
<mailto:members-admin at jabber.org> ]On Behalf Of Colin Madere 
Sent: jeudi 17 mai 2001 21:22 
To: 'members at jabber.org' 
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol 

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
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
<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
*) If Jabber.com refuses, we'll change the name. 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Colin Madere [ mailto:colin at vedalabs.com <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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20010517/9965792c/attachment.html

More information about the Members mailing list