R: [Foundation] On a coherent compliance, trademark and IPR policy

bauer at michaelbauer.com bauer at michaelbauer.com
Wed Oct 16 11:28:15 CDT 2002


I think a compliance list and a marketing list would both be great, Peter.  
While I think it's good for each of these groups to meet privately to work 
out issues before bringing them to a broader audience, I think some 
dedicated discussion lists for each would be great.  

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> I agree with Iain -- more discussion is better than less. We can always
> direct this energy onto the compliance list. Speaking of which, does it
> exist yet? If not, shall I set it up?
> 
> Peter
> 
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
> 
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Sorry, I guess I wasn't being clear. I didn't intend for this discussion to
> > be "official" in any way. This is more like a town meeting for the community
> > to toss in their 2 cents in an informal, hopefully heated debate. The board
> > and council should continue their own work. I hope of course that our
> > thoughts might influence your work but it doesn't need to have any direct
> > effects.
> > 
> > We're just airing our ideas. If any gains significant weight and is not
> > being taken up/addressed by the council/board, then we'll contact our
> > elected officials and bitch and moan. :)
> > 
> > -iain
> > 
> > On 10/10/02 9:10 AM, "bauer at michaelbauer.com" <bauer at michaelbauer.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 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:
> > > 
> > >> Iain,
> > >> 
> > >> 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:
> > >> http://www.jabber.org/board/meetings/minutes-2002-09-24.php
> > >> 
> > >> 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.
> > >> http://www.tipic.com
> > >> e-mail & Jabber: ocrampal at tipic.com
> > >> blog: http://www.tipic.com/blog/ocrampal@tipic.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
> > >> 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     bauer at michaelbauer.com       http://www.michaelbauer.com




More information about the Members mailing list