R: [Foundation] On a coherent compliance, trademark and IPR
bauer at michaelbauer.com
bauer at michaelbauer.com
Thu Oct 10 11:10:32 CDT 2002
Yes, Iain, not that I don't appreciate your points either, but we've
already outlined a strategy and an approach for resolving each of these
issues. Marco asked for JINC to clarify their TM policy. Tony Bamonti is
going to get back to us on this. Jer is heading up the Compliance
program. Overlap between both of those issues is being addressed by the
Marketing committee (that you, me, and others are discussing tomorrow).
The IP issues are being addressed in a policy statement that is
currently waiting legal review. We have dates for doing these things in
the Minutes, I believe.
Have we missed something?
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, ocrampal wrote:
> I appreciate your points (I tend to agree with them).
> Let me just say that these points have been covered during the first meeting
> of the JSF Board:
> As a Board Member (not affiliated to JINC), I personally proposed to the
> Board to include in the resolutions (point 5) that JINC should clearly state
> their position about the Trademark.
> During the Board meeting the compliance issues was also covered and a
> Compliance Committee was set-up chaired by Jer; we have called for
> participant to the group.
> I do not mean to kill the discussion you started in any way, I just wanted
> to point out that there is a framework for this discussion already and that
> the discussion is already very open.
> We should all participate in the Marketing and Compliance Committee and let
> all hear our voice; I see an eventual departure from using Jabber as a name
> a very severe drawback for our community and I am working hard to avoid it!
> Marco Palombi
> Tipic Inc.
> e-mail & Jabber: ocrampal at tipic.com
> blog: http://email@example.com
> > One of the stickier and longer running unresolved issues on the Jabber
> > standards/JSF docket has been the combined issues of "Jabber compliance",
> > the Jabber trademark (TM), and intellectual property (IP). IMO,
> > part of the
> > difficulty is they have a combined business and technical aspect. Although
> > the council and board are supposed to help JSF work these issues out, I
> > think that we as a community must provide guidance on creating an overall
> > strategy or set of goals that meets our needs.
> > There's no real good place to start so I'll arbitrarily suggest
> > we begin by
> > tackling TM, then compliance, and finally IP. So I'm going to throw out a
> > strawman set of goals and approach and then everyone can poke holes in it
> > and hopefully move the discussion forward.
> > Goals
> > 1) Allow zero-cost, open use of the Jabber protocol
> > 2) Ensure interoperability
> > 3) Foster an active developer and user community
> > 4) Encourage evolution and use of Jabber outside the realm of IM
> > 5) Encourage commercial use of Jabber (controversial?)
> > Strategy
> > 1) Resolve TM issue. Have Jinc commit to the TM either being used
> > generically and freely by the community or not. If Jinc decides
> > to keep the
> > Jabber TM, the JSF should select a new TM to describe the protocol (e.g.
> > XMPP). Whatever we come up with, let's call it the TM. The TM
> > describes the
> > technology and standards.
> > 2) Define Jabber compliance. This ties into the IETF work being
> > done and all
> > the JEPs underway. Peter has some really great ideas on XMPP vs. Jabber
> > (http://www.saint-andre.com/jabber/xmpp+jabber.html) and this might play
> > well into the JabberEnvironments ideas by Adam Theo
> > (http://www.theoretic.com/?Jabber_2.0). Part of the standards
> > process should
> > define compliance tests. Compliant implementations may use the TM in
> > literature, and apply the JabberPowered TM and logo. JSF certifies
> > compliance and enforces TMs.
> > 3) Secure unencumbered use of IP from Jinc as needed. The IETF effort will
> > require IP issues to be resolved so I think most of this will
> > naturally fall
> > out from the IETF process.
> > Schedule
> > I think its important that we set some milestones in order to make sure
> > things proceed on some reasonable timeline. Here we want to be reasonable
> > but not pushovers.
> > 1) Jan 2003 - Jinc commits to TM decision. If they don't commit, the
> > community must move forward by abandoning Jabber and selecting a
> > new TM. The
> > name can't be a roadblock to progress. Is this a reasonable amount of time
> > for Jinc to make a decision?
> > 2) ?? - coordinate compliance tests and JabberPowered
> > "certification" to be
> > ready when the IETF work completes. As I understand, its on a pretty fast
> > track so it should be sooner rather than later.
> > Thoughts? I've got my fire suit ready, flame on!
> > -iain
> > _______________________________________________
> > Members mailing list
> > Members at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
Michael Bauer bauer at michaelbauer.com http://www.michaelbauer.com
More information about the Members