R: R: [Foundation] I: [Board] Agenda Discussion
iain.shigeoka at messaginglogic.com
Wed Sep 18 12:17:25 CDT 2002
On 9/17/02 8:49 PM, "bauer at michaelbauer.com" <bauer at michaelbauer.com> wrote:
> One thing that caused some concern about certification when we discussed
> this last year was the following. If we want to develop a certification
> program that goes beyond what we've already established then there may be
> quite a bit more work involved. Specifically, simply having a set of
> certification tools may not be enough. Human intervention will probably
> be required, from a minimum of reviewing the results of the certification
> tools to reviewing web sites and even literature. These complexities
> arise from trademark law as I understand them. Of course, this kind of
> thing is really the responsibility of the trademark owner.
> Note, I may be raising issues that we might not choose to address.
> Nevertheless, these are issues that exist, I believe.
No, you're quite right. There are really only two ways to approach it. We
either have it lazy and loose, with self-certification, and
community-policing of compliance, or you have to seriously enforce
compliance with rigorous process, and active search and prosecution of
The value of the certification, logo, trademarks, etc are entirely based on
the amount of money you're willing to spend enforcing your rights. Hence,
Disney branding has extremely high value while GNU doesn't have any value at
Hence the cost and value of the Java logo and marks...
For Jabber, I'm not sure what the best solution is. We can't half-ass it
though. As I understand US trademark/patent law, once you are made aware of
a violator and do not pursue them, you've basically passed on your right to
enforce compliance... In relation to "Jabber" and the jabber logo, it may
already be too late to follow a strict compliance campaign as jinc has not
been actively defending its rights.
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Marco Palombi wrote:
>> Thank you Iain,
>> very practical position; appreciate that.
>> It seems that we all agree on a common set of "automated tests"; hopefully
>> if jabber inc releases their testing tool, this can be done very quickly.
>> Marco Palombi
>> Tipic Inc.
>> e-mail & Jabber: ocrampal at tipic.com
>> blog: http://email@example.com
>> -----Messaggio originale-----
>> Da: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org]Per conto
>> di Iain Shigeoka
>> Inviato: lunedi 16 settembre 2002 18.33
>> A: Jabber
>> Oggetto: Re: R: [Foundation] I: [Board] Agenda Discussion
>> On 9/14/02 5:23 AM, "Marco Palombi" <marco.palombi at tipic.com> wrote:
>>> I would like to hear more from the Foundation Members and the Community in
>>> general about the Jabber Trademark (who should own it in the best interest
>>> of the Jabber Community as a whole); I would like to know in particular:
>>> - what is the feeling of Open Source developers ?
>> As an open source developer, I'd like a minimum of hassles worrying about
>> how I can use the name "Jabber" and associated logos. I'd like to have a
>> common, free (zero-cost) resource packet of this information (license,
>> readme, etc) and collateral data (logo, boilerplate copyright notices,
>> standard emoticons, etc) that I can read, understand, and then use.
>>> - what is the feeling of Commercial entities ?
>> As a commercial developer, I'd like the name "Jabber" and associated logos
>> to mean something above and beyond just warm fuzzies that we all like each
>> other. To me this implies some compliance guarantees (automated tests,
>> testing lab, etc) and more rigorous documentation on what the standards are
>> to comply with. I'd like a resource packet of information (license, readme,
>> etc), collateral data (logo, boilerplate copyright notices, standard
>> emoticons, etc), and information on the limits of modifying, extending, and
>> otherwise creating "value-add" without violating any agreements that are in
>> As far as ownership, to me it doesn't matter who owns everything so long as
>> we can work out a reasonable policy regarding usage of name, copyright,
>> trademarks, etc. I think its preferable that one entity own all related
>> assets so that you only have to deal with one organization and there is a
>> unified response to queries. I also think it is preferable that this
>> organization have the resources to maintain full-time staff, phones,
>> contract lawyers, etc. If the JSF can't do this, then the only reasonable
>> choice would seem to me to be jinc. If there are enough commercial entities
>> that want to share the responsibility, then it seems logical that they
>> jointly fund JSF so that it can act as such.
>> Probably not the majority opinion but that's my thoughts.
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at jabber.org
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members