[Foundation] Reset: Back to business
Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
heg at imissary.com
Wed Mar 13 12:23:02 CST 2002
I second Dave's suggestion to change the name to avoid the tradmark issues.
> catastrophic - definitely not boring, though), and I believe some of the
> archives will show my opinion about your second suggestion: XMPP was
> suggested, and I believe it's the best option for us, because it says
> exactly what "Jabber" is, and wouldn't be easy for anybody to trademark.
> If we're looking at our IM system as the equivalent of email for the IM
> world, we need a truly open name (unless we want to have to refer to our
> protocol as RFC xxxx/yyyy/zzzz (since it's likely to get broken up into
> several RFCs, anyway). As for conformance issues, the easiest thing to
> do is make sure the RFCs are 100% unambiguous and cover all the bases
> so anything that conforms to the RFCs is XMPP- (or whatever we end up
> calling our protocol suite) compliant. As soon as our historical RFC
> is accepted, we'll have something reasonably official to point to, and
> if we can convince the IMPP group to give up on waiting for the big guys
> to agree on something, we'll have something _very_ official to point to.
> We can certainly move forward on this issue even without arguing with
> Jabber, Inc. (although that would certainly be somewhat of a backstab,
> in view of everything Jabber, Inc. has done for us), but I think your
> approach may be wiser.
More information about the Members