[Foundation] Jabber (tm)

Justin Kirby justink at rochester.rr.com
Tue May 22 00:15:52 CDT 2001

I have been watching this debate from its beginning. And I have been trying
to figure out why I feel so unsettled about this issue.

I think that it boils down to this:
Jabber is about open communication, knocking down walls/barriers, etc...
The Jabber Foundation is being formed to organize and centralize that effort
into a cohesive singular voice. One of the primary tenants of the Foundation
is to prevent any one organization from enforcing too much control over the
direction of Jabber, thus the 15% limit.

If such a simple and yet powerful thing as the name of this project is to be
controlled by a single entity, i.e. Jabber.com....  well that's why I am so

-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On Behalf Of
Michael J. Emswiler
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 6:06 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

My biggest concern with this whole issue is what happens when:
1. Jabber.com realizes its not cool to be a dot-com anymore and their
chances of a successful IPO are slim to none.
2. Jabber.com sells out to <evil grin> AOL
3. AOL has ownership of Jabber Trademark and decides that talking with out
IMs isn't such a hot idea after all.  I mean, they already own AIM and ICQ
... look at how well they work together.

Now, you might think I'm an alarmist, but one think I've learned in business
is that anything *can* and *will* happen.

I feel we need to be sure that the Foundation is protected.

If this means coming up with a new name, I'm all for it ... remember how
quickly Netscape renamed themselves from Mozilla ... (course, they had all
those IPO dollars coming in the pre-IPO dot-com pump-n-dump scam ...)

BTW, I'm not really slamming dot-com business models, just exaggerating for
the benefit of expressing the point.

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Bauer
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

Just to be clear, we're only talking about Sun's Java Trademark policy, not
their general attitude towards open source.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bauer [mailto:bauer at jabber.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 2:21 PM
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

I'm not trying to avoid you're question, Colin.  I don't think this is such
a problem as Sun seems to have handled it reasonably well with Java.  As for
Protocol vs Thing, I'd be inclined toward Thing.  Perhaps "Jabber TM
Solution" which is like "Java TM Technology" only bigger :)

 We understand the issue with respect to Jabber as company name and concept
moniker.  We have to do everything we can to insure this doesn't get
confused.  Unfortunately, allowing other companies to use the name in
products and company names is just not going to help matters.  We have to do
some basic things to keep the brand viable for the long term.  We think
we're really doing the best we can under the circumstances, like being OK
with companies using Jab for example and then tying that to "Jabber TM

We need a program that we can all get reasonably comfortable with and get
going on.  Java looks like a good model for such a program.  I hope we can
get some consensus around this - or at least abstension.

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Madere [mailto:colin at vedalabs.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 10:35 AM
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

I didn't get much response the last time I mentioned this, so maybe I'm way
off.  Please tell me if I'm wrong.
"Jabber" == Name of protocol && Name of Whole Idea we're talking about
"Jabber" == Trademark OWNED by Jabber.com
If I am correct, am I the only one who sees this as a problem?  It's quite
possible I'm overreacting.  Can I get some feedback?
On to Mr. Bauers items...
> 1.  At a minimum we agree we must do something insure the
> quality of "things
> Jabber".  We need to establish some kind of quality
> management program,
> probably based around compliance with the Jabber protocol.  A
> third party,
> the Foundation, should manage this program.  Compliance with
> this program
> confers the right to use some kind of quality mark, such as
> "100% Jabber".

> 2.  In addition, we need some mechanism to insure that the community,
> through the Foundation, is granted a "perpetual and
> irrevocable right" to
> implement a quality program and bestow a quality mark.  This
> right insures
> that the Community will never lose its investment in using
> the Jabber name
> appropriately.
Hmmm.. "using the Jabber name appropriately"... that means NOT in any
company name, domain name, or product name.  I'm just having trouble being
ok with this, but Jabber.com has full _legal_ right to do this. (see top of
email)  I guess I wish the community owned "Jabber" and Jabber.com made
their own name for quality high-end products by branding it with
"Jabber.com".  I think if (and I'm sure they do) have top-notch products,
they don't need to control the word "Jabber" and they can stand on their own
by putting "Jabber.com" on their products.
> 3.  We agree that non-commercial use of the Jabber name is OK
> provided that
> the use meets the quality standards of the Foundation and
> uses the quality
> mark appropriately.  On a forward-looking basis it would be
> preferable to
> Jabber.com if new non-commercial sites just used the quality mark :)
This would be perfectly fine with me if the community hadn't already adopted
the name "Jabber" as the protocol name and this great idea that we all know
as "Jabber".  (again, see top of email)

> 4.  Regardless of ownership, though, we understand the name
> Jabber when used
> in a commercial product, service, company, or domain is restricted to
> Jabber.com, Inc.  We think that it's OK to use something like
> "Jab" as part
> of a name but are just double-checking that right now.  We do
> think that
> something like "Jab"  can only be used in conjunction with
> the quality mark.
It would be GREAT if Jabber.com would allow others to use "Jab" in the name
so others could at least somehow easily ally their products/services/etc
with "Jabber" (I mean the idea and protocol here, not the company
jabber.com).  As for the name "Jabber", see the rest of my comments :)

> I think that covers it.
I don't agree that the points made address the problem I stated at the
beginning of this email.  Again, maybe I'm crazy and it's not an issue.
Colin Madere

More information about the Members mailing list