[Foundation] Jabber is the protocol

[Peter Saint-Andre]

Hi Max,

I appreciate your bluntness. :) There's no reason for us all not to be 
forthright and direct.

My sense is that the right you refer to would be irrevocable, since per 
Jer's proposal the Jabber Foundation would *own* the Jabber trademark. 
Jabber.com would transfer the trademark ownership to the Foundation and 
the Foundation would manage the use of the trademark and all derivative 
marks (e.g., "100% Jabber compliant" or whatever), so the Foundation 
would set the rules (subject of course to the initial agreement between 
the two organizations, but I wouldn't think that such an agreement would 
involve a revocable right on the Foundation's part to manage the mark). 
Or at least that's how I understand it right now.

Peter

Max Metral wrote:

> Goodwill was not blunt enough... My point is, if the right is revocable, it
> has some impact on usage.  But I think we're now at least moving forward to
> the "what's the right legal structure" and past the "do we have the same
> goals" which is a big step.  Do others agree that Jabber.com is in fact
> trying to do the right thing here?  (If not speak up)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpeter at jabber.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 4:44 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber is the protocol
> 
> 
> 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
> sell...
> 
> 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).
> 
> Peter
> 
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>right?
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
stpeter at jabber.org