[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
ben at blahr.com
Fri Jul 11 15:20:30 CDT 2003
I would refer to my products as Jabber. In fact, I know a couple small,
independent companies that do Jabber-related work and reffer to it as
such. Look, as Tony said, there has been no evidence presented that makes
me believe that I couldn't clearly communicate that what I do is related
to an open protocol, as opposed to a corporate entity that does similar
work with a similar name. As Don Bergal stated, and I already agreed to
earlier, "I would much rather be a member of a well known thriving
marketplace and differentiate based on real software advantages." In
addition to those software advantages, there is the definite posibility
that by being a smaller entity, I could cut costs.
Those who support this proposal have done nothing but say, this could be a
problem, but have only put forth exaggerated examples of where it has been
a problem. (Like the three example articles that "confuse" the JSF, Jabber
and Jabber, Inc.)
Stephen Lee said:
> None of us are anywhere near the size of MS and I disagree, I think they
> would refer to it as XMPP not jabber. The question was not what MS would
> do.. The question is how you would feel.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On
> Behalf Of Ben Schumacher
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:55 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
> Frankly, if I was Microsoft (seeing as how they have one of the most
> widely used WebDAV implementations), I don't think I'd care either way.
> And should Microsoft decide to drop SIMPLE in favor of Jabber, I don't
> think they'd bat an eye.
> Matt Jankowski said:
>> Ben, great example.
>> Let's say you were a commercial entity considering using WebDAV in one
>> of your products and donating money to the "webdav community" -- would
>> you be more or less inclined to do so if there was a company named
>> "WebDAV, Inc." that you would be competing with?
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Ben Schumacher wrote:
>>> Matt Tucker said:
>>> > One of our points all along has been that the HTTP/web comparison
>>> > to XMPP/Jabber is flat out wrong if you are referring to "Jabber"
>>> > as XMPP protocol extensions. When you refer to Jabber as the
>>> > community and software using XMPP and extensions, then yes, the
>>> > comparison makes sense. It's Protocol/System vs. Protocol/Protocol.
>>> Then take the example of WebDAV. It is a set of protocol extensions
>>> to HTTP that provide the ability to do web-based distributed
>>> authoring and versioning. In the same way, Jabber is a set of
>>> protocol extensions to XMPP that create, what you have called, a
>>> "full-featured IM system." Both HTTP and XMPP are complete and usable
>>> protocols without the addition of WebDAV and Jabber, and there is
>>> nothing preventing any users from taking them and using them as is.
>>> > Think about it this way -- when extensions to HTTP came out such as
>>> > ability to compress the stream, did they invent a new name? No,
>>> > they called it HTTP 1.1. Or, how about SMTP and ESMTP? Our position
>>> > is that it's useful and extremely beneficial to clarify the
>>> > community's
>>> > around the protocol so that all protocol terminology is focused
>>> > around XMPP and "Jabber" can be left to serve other purposes, such
>>> > as:
>>> This about it this way -- when extensions to HTTP came out such as
>>> distributed authoring and version, did they invent a new name? Yes,
>>> they called it WebDAV. Our position is that it's useful and extremely
>>> beneficial to continue the community's position that the set of
>>> protocol extensions which build upon XMPP to create a "full-feature
>>> IM system" are called Jabber, and the group of that designs, builds
>>> and promotes these protocol enhancements is the Jabber Software
>>> > There are many of us that feel we can't promote the Jabber
>>> > terminology as long as it's so closely tied to a single company,
>>> > but we can all
>>> > towards making the core protocol and extensions succeed.
>>> There is certainly nothing preventing folks who feel that they cannot
>>> promote the Jabber terminology from creating their out community, and
>>> their own set of enhancements to XMPP. Microsoft has often taken
>>> broadly used protocols, and extended them to serve their purposes
>>> better. I hope, however, that in the interest of broader
>>> compatibility across all "full-feature IM systems" based on XMPP,
>>> that those folks choose not to do
>>> >> So to
>>> >> stop using the name of Jabber which defines a full IM system would
>>> >> be
>>> >> mistake. I am 100% against removing the name and use of Jabber
>>> >> from
>>> >> JSF.
>>> > Fair enough, although I don't follow your logic. :)
>>> And I don't follow yours. But, as you said, we will vote and we will
>>> move on. I can only hope that this time we truly move on. This issue
>>> has been brought up on several occasions by members of the community,
>>> and every previous community decision to move on has, apparently,
>>> been ignored.
>>> Members mailing list
>>> Members at jabber.org http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at jabber.org
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members