[Foundation] Jabber is the protocol
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu May 17 15:44:28 CDT 2001
Full disclosure: I work for Jabber.com but I'm not in a position to make
any decisions about all this. :)
I think Jabber.com is not just doing this out of a sense of goodwill,
although that is part of it. IMHO having the Jabber name spread around
more is in their quite selfish commercial interest, too. After all, the
more people are using Jabber, the more servers they'll be able to
I hadn't thought of your idea about repayment. Personally I don't think
that's necessary, but I suppose it might have some merit (since then the
community wouldn't be perceived as getting something for nothing).
Max Metral wrote:
> I think it's great that this seems to be the case, although one
> question/clarification... If Jabber.com is doing this out of their own
> goodwill, this would obviously be dangerous for us.
> Something buried in my message was the fact that I think we SHOULD consider
> repaying them for what they did, even paying a premium on it if necessary.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at jabber.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 4:05 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol
> Max Metral wrote:
>>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
>>How much do we think we're talking about here for the cost of acquiring
>>and "legalizing" the Jabber trademark?
> Hi Max,
> My understanding is that no one would have to pay *anything* to use a
> derivative mark such as "Jabber Inside" or "Jabber Compliant" or
> whatever. So if PeoplePC offers PeopleIM and says it's "Powered by
> Jabber", then you don't have to pay anything for that privilege (though
> you might have to demonstrate some level of compliance with standards
> defined by the Foundation).
> Further, my understanding is that the Foundation will not have to pay
> for the right to develop and manage these derivative marks. Obviously
> it's in Jabber.com's best interests that there exist lots of services
> and products that are "powered by Jabber", so they want to work with the
> Jabber Foundation to make this happen in a way that everyone can use.
stpeter at jabber.org
More information about the Members