[Foundation] Jabber (tm)

Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. heg at sirlabs.com
Tue May 22 09:34:37 CDT 2001

I agree with what Bill Abbas has said, that to get support from other
commercial entities to support the effort we as the foundation need to be
independent and not  make it a disadvantage for other companies to support
the effort.

I agree with Justin Kirby that this whole dialog on the Jabber name is
unsettling.  I am not sure it is unsettling for the same reasons. On the
17th I wrote an email that I got what I would consider a zero response, DJ
Adams did respond, but it was to indicate the name was important to him.  My
email could have been more sensitive about the name and empathetic towards
those that cherish it, because they associate it with their hard work.  My
email was more about leadership and not the name.

I will replay my message below and that of Bill Abbas for review.

I am unsettled not about the name or the name change, but about the lack of
leadership that I see here from Jabber.org and for that matter Jabber.com.
I know this going to get me in trouble, but then I am sorry.  The seperation
of jabber.org from jabber.com has not been easy. I have only been looking at
"jabber" for the last 6 months, not a veteran, not a newbie as far looking
in, but a newbie as a participant.

I have my own selfish reasons for wanting to see this platform move forward,
but that is for another day.  I have given it great deal of thought of
whether to splinter and take the good parts of jabber.  Why do I want to do
that?  I want to do that because the leadership is broken.  I want to
contribute, but no one is responsible, it is hard to communicate with the
veterans, because your not part of the clique.

Jabber.com is trying to see that jabber.org does not fall apart, by getting
the foundation going.  Jabber.com has also broken the leadership, because
they took the development inside which is fine if you want to guarantee the
work gets done.  But instead jabber.com has created their own proprietary
version of the same work.  This really bothers me from a jabber.org
perspective, because their is a double effort that is going on.  If the
goals are the same, make it open source, if not then make that part
proprietary, but why reinvent.

I would like to see things move forward, but I am very concerned, because we
as a foundation are having trouble dealing with this name thing instead of
building the leadership of the organization.  What is important is that
organization and it's cause live on and not the name. (as veterans stab heg)


-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
Behalf Of Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:39 AM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Name

Charter Members,

I have read all the discussions about the Jabber name and find it quite
unproductive.  Jabber.com purchased the trademark, they own it and can
regulate any way they choose, it is their prerogative.

Who cares that the name is jabber or not jabber, if the foundation is
responsible for the development of the future protocol, servers and clients
that is what matters.  What matters is that we build the best reference
implementation of the protocols we design.

Today Jabber.com has an advantage over the rest of the world and they will
evangelize in our favor.  They deserve that advantage.  But their advantage
will fade as the foundation grows stronger. Jabber.com will become more
dependent on the foundation in the future if we make ourselves pervasive.

Why not separate ourselves now from Jabber, call the foundation Jabelin.org
apply for the trademarks, etc.  We will not loose anything by doing this,
but gain our own image and stand for the ideals, we as a group want to have.
If Jabelin is unavailable we can choose something different. My point here
is that we need to become independent as a foundation and as an

It is nice that Jabber.com is willing to foot the initial cost of
incorporating the foundation.  I hope that the entity being created will be
a totally independent of Jabber.com the company and that they retain no
ownership in the foundation.  If the entity is owned by Jabber.com we will
not have the independence we seek. We should then seek to form an
independent foundation.

Will jabber.com retain ownership in the Jabber.org Foundation?  This is very
important for us to find out.

The purpose of the foundation should be to foster the best possible
solutions for our protocol, to evangelize it, to foster commercial growth
around it.  There is nothing wrong with any of us making money from the work
of the foundation.  If we become independent now we can grow the foundation
into an entity that can support itself, via the licensing of our name, etc.

Lets stop the name bickering and concentrate on what is important.  What is
important Today is that this foundation:
1) be independent,
2) get organized,
3) be worthy to control the future of what we call Jabber(it's just a name).

Lets work together to make sure the foundation is built to support the long
term objectives, to be independent, to have a de facto protocol, to have the
best references implementations of our designs, to have goals and project
that foster the best minds to collaborate.


Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.

"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." - Albert

-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
Behalf Of Bill Abbas
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 5:39 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] Jabber (tm)

On Monday 21 May 2001 13:28, Michael Bauer wrote:
> Just to be clear, we're only talking about Sun's Java
> Trademark policy, not their general attitude towards open
> source.

That's a relief :-)  Just to clarify things because I see
Java being used as an example: Java is not open source.
Not even close.  Sun controls the language and has engaged
in fabulous contortions to avoid losing control of it to a
standards body.

Otherwise, here's my 2 kopeks:

I work for a company which may eventually decide
(hopefully) to contribute resources to Jabber development.
In order to make this case to them, however, I think that
all companies involved in the open source effort have got
to be on essentially equal footing.  I certainly don't mind
j.c getting appropriate credit for being a large part of
the open source Jabber server, but it's tough for me to
sell my company's management on the wisdom of what, to
them, is basically building someone else's brand.  That's
what our marketing/business people see when they look at
j.o and j.c.

Which is one of the reasons why I would be happy to see the
open source protocol and the reference implementation

1) As stated, companies like mine would be more willing to
cough up developers (yuck :) if the effort was perceived as
not disproportionately benefiting one company.

2) We could do this now, because, frankly, it's not like
Jabber is a household word at this point.  OSS fans and
software geeks know about it, but I don't think it's
established as a brand in any real sense of the word.  In
addition, products like LotusXSL and XML4J made the
transition to open source and were renamed in the process,
and it doesn't seem to have hurt them.

3) Ummm, I don't quite know how to put this without
invoking significant flames, but ... the name Jabber just
bites it anyhow.  It has negative connotations.  I'm not a
marketing wiz or anything, but a word which is synonomous
with "Gibberish", "babble", and "drivel" is not something I
would consider as my first choice.

4) I liked the sound of "IMTP".  It kind of leads in the
direction I think we all want to go, of establishing an IM
protocol as a fundamental, standardized, IM transport akin
to HTTP and FTP.  Somehow, I just don't see putting a
"jabber    5222/tcp" line in my /etc/services :)


Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org

More information about the Members mailing list