[Foundation] Jabber Usage Guidelines

Max Metral Max.Metral at peoplepcHQ.com
Mon Mar 25 14:22:23 CST 2002


All I can say is, WHERE HAS ALL THE LOVE GONE?

:)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bauer [mailto:bauer at michaelbauer.com]
Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 2:10 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Usage Guidelines


On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Stephen Lee wrote:

> Michael,
> 
> Sorry I meant trademark not copyright and I would suggest you probably
> knew that if you read my entire email, anyway thanks for your opinion.
> Any comments on the rest of my email?
> 

Gee, sorry, no, I didn't realize that you were asking whether you could 
TRADEMARK a protocol, Steve.  I guess using the word COPYRIGHT threw me.  
For some reason, reading the rest of your email, asking for the 4th or 5th 
time whether the Board or Council has met on the trademark issue, didn't 
seem to clear that up.

You can use your trademark (an adjective) in conjunction with any thing (a 
noun) you want within the class of goods or service for which you have a 
trademark.  Again, it's about using language in works to describe a thing, 
not the thing itself that this is all about.  (The thing itself is 
protected by a PATENT).  Aveda, the beauty products company, has 
trademarked far less tangible things, like Attraction, Bliss, and my 
personal favorite, Chakra.  Apparently, you can have neither Attraction, 
Bliss, or a Chakra in the beauty products field unless it's Aveda's.  

Perhaps something more relevant to this discussion would be the SET 
Protocol, the Secure Electronic Transaction Protocol.  SET is a trademark 
of a subsidiary (I believe) of MasterCard International.  Their guidelines 
state that you can't use the SET marks in certain instances unless you 
comply with the SET Protocol.  Again, like copyright, trademarks are 
relevant to usage of terms in works relevant to the thing in question.  
You may or may not be able to USE the SET Protocol (as in AOL, depends on 
whether you're blocked in its usage or whether you're violating a patent) 
but you can't CALL something the SET Protocol without MasterCard's 
permission (http://www.setco.org/download/set_mark.pdf).


> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On
> Behalf Of Michael Bauer
> Sent: March 25, 2002 12:37 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Usage Guidelines
> 
> 
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Stephen Lee wrote:
> 
> > It would appear to me to be a little premature to be defining a set of
> 
> > guidelines on something that the foundation has not even really 
> > decided is a protocol or a name. I have seen several discussions on 
> > this issue with no real definitive reply (although I may have missed 
> > it). When reading the IETF  draft it states.. "Jabber is a set of 
> > open, XML-based protocols for which there exist multiple 
> > implementations". So I would assume that jabber is a protocol. If this
> 
> > is the case than the question arises.. Can you copyright a protocol?
> > 
> 
> This question is non-sensical.  You copyright written works.  You can 
> copyright a work that describes a protocol.  The document that defines
> the 
> HTTP protocol itself (http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616.html)
> is 
> copyright 1999 The Internet Society.  The copyright applies to the 
> document.  Copyright violations are only relevant to the document.  
> Whether or not you can build systems that use that protocol to
> communicate 
> with other systems is a completely separate issue.  You can be in 
> violation of whole other sets of conventions, such as unauthorized use
> of 
> computing facilities (like hacking the AIM protocol to communicate with 
> AOL IM users) but you're not in violation of a copyright.  Moreover, the
> 
> whole discussion is about trademarks, not copyrights.  The question is 
> whether Jabber is a noun or an adjective.  Trademark conventions
> stipulate 
> that a trademark term is to be used as an adjective.  I was advocating 
> that the Foundation develop a set of guidelines that conform to
> trademark 
> conventions regardless of the ownership or licensing of the trademark
> from 
> Jabber, Inc.  The point of advocating this was to protect as much of the
> 
> traditional definition of brand equity associated with the term "Jabber"
> 
> as possible.  I think the point is to define what Jabber describes and
> use 
> it accordingly.  If it's a "Communications Platform" then the statement
> in 
> question might very well be re-written as:
> 
> The Jabber Communications Platform is a set of open, XML-based protocols
> 
> for which there exist multiple implementations - with or without the 
> little (tm) after Jabber.
> 
> Then Jabber is new kind of "Communications Platform" for building a next
> 
> generation Internet infrastructure.  It builds on a set of XML-based
> open 
> communications platforms that connect clients and servers in multiple 
> languages and implementation with one another.  You then also have the 
> Jabber Clients, and the Jabber Servers, and the Jabber Bots, and the 
> Jabber Protocols.  All of which are using Jabber as an adjective to 
> describe something in the Communications Platform.  What doesn't seem to
> 
> work in my mind from a branding perspective is to use Jabber as a noun
> to 
> describe some "thing".  It all reminds me of the Robin Williams skit
> where 
> he's high on cocaine and is playing with his son's Transformer, saying, 
> "It's a car, it's a robot, it's a car, it's a robot, AIIGGH! "What the 
> f*** is it?!?!".  Of course, we could always punt on the whole thing in 
> which case it doesn't really matter if there are any real guidelines.
> 
> 
> > I would also think that the foundation should decide the direction it 
> > is going to take on the trademark issue. Regardless of the direction 
> > Jabber inc., the foundation should have a game plan in place for the 
> > jabber trademark issue. Has there been a council meeting or board 
> > meeting to discuss the direction of the foundation on this issue?
> > 
> > I would be more than pleased to work on the guidelines for usage, but 
> > it would seem to me that we as a foundation should decide the 
> > direction we are going to take on these open issues first.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On 
> > Behalf Of Harold E. Gottschalk Jr.
> > Sent: March 23, 2002 4:36 PM
> > To: members at jabber.org
> > Subject: RE: [Foundation] Jabber Usage Guidelines
> > 
> > 
> > Great Suggestion Michael, Steve Lee would you be willing to volunteer 
> > to head up a strawman for this? heg
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Michael Bauer
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:19 AM
> > > To: members at jabber.org
> > > Subject: [Foundation] Jabber Usage Guidelines
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Regardles of the position of Jabber, Inc., I think it might be in 
> > > the
> > > best interest of the Foundation to come up with a set of acceptable 
> > > use guidelines for using the term Jabber in and of itself.  Brand 
> > > names are adjectives, so one set of guidelines might be to advocate 
> > > that people use the term Jabber as a secondary adjective for their 
> > > primary brand name, like this:
> > >
> > > The Persimmon Jabber Server
> > > The Papaya Jabber Client
> > >
> > > Of course, there are a whole set of uses that can be proscribed.
> > > Traditionally, this even includes font and logos.  Of course, the 
> > > Foundation isn't going to specify an official font, but it might 
> > > specify things like if Jabber is going to be used in a stylized
> font, 
> > > it has to stand alone and can't be distorted, like having the "e" in
> 
> > > Jabber facing backwards.
> > >
> > > It would be interesting to see if there was some way to come up with
> 
> > > a
> > 
> > > solution to this problem from the Foundation's perspective.  I think
> > > some guidelines would be useful to help insure the brand's
> integrity. 
> > > Regardless, some kind of independent statement might be useful.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > --
> > > Michael Bauer        me at michaelbauer.com
> > http://www.michaelbauer.com
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Members mailing list
> > > Members at jabber.org http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bauer        me at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members



More information about the Members mailing list