[Foundation] Jabber is the protocol
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu May 17 16:59:09 CDT 2001
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.
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
> 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
>>repaying them for what they did, even paying a premium on it if necessary.
>>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?
>>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