[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Jason Frankel jfrankel at winfessor.com
Thu May 22 14:04:39 CDT 2003


> 2) XMPP is the term that *everyone* will soon be using. This is due to
point #1 above, and also because XMPP will be the official name of the
protocol. Trying to make the distinction between Jabber and XMPP is very
confusing and I think having the word "Jabber" as part of our name
lowers our effectiveness with the outside world.

+1 Although I'm still inclined to keep them closely associated
(XMPP/Jabber). Similar to (SIP/SIMPLE). As Jabber is a well recognized
brand and can help us market XMPP in the short term (Jabber is a proven
technology where as SIMPLE is not, etc.)

> From what I understand, the IETF might not look kindly on using XMPP
as part of an organization name. Therefore, I'd propose using something
more generic such as "Open IM Foundation"

We should ask them. XMPP appears to better define our scope and
eliminates some of the issues with confusion between the Jabber, Inc.
and the open protocol. I constantly meet people who think that the
Jabber protocol is proprietary to Jabber Inc., and they have a
difficulty decerning the difference between Jabber.com and Jabber.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Tucker [mailto:matt at jivesoftware.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:02 AM
To: members at jabber.org

Peter,

As long as we're considering name changes... :) I believe that we're now
at the point that the word "Jabber" should be removed from the
organization name.

  1) Jabber is a registered trademark. Jabber Inc. has said they would
license the trademark, but there's not much of a point to that when they
are still actively using it for business purposes. Sponsors have a much
lower incentive to give to the organization when its very name promotes
a competitor. Besides, Jabber Inc. has invested a lot into their brand
and they deserve to keep and use it.

  2) XMPP is the term that *everyone* will soon be using. This is due to
point #1 above, and also because XMPP will be the official name of the
protocol. Trying to make the distinction between Jabber and XMPP is very
confusing and I think having the word "Jabber" as part of our name
lowers our effectiveness with the outside world.

 From what I understand, the IETF might not look kindly on using XMPP as
part of an organization name. Therefore, I'd propose using something
more generic such as "Open IM Foundation".

So, bring on the flames. I know "Jabber" has a very important place in
the community's history and I don't mean to denegrate that. However, our
true mission is to lead the adoption of the open IM protocol XMPP, and I
think we could best do that with a more radical name change.

Regards,
Matt

P.S. -- I don't expect very much initial traction with this idea, so
agree that Jabber Standards Foundation is at least a good step in the
right direction. :)

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Since we haven't had a good controversy on this list in at least a 
> week, I figured I'd stir things up again. As you may know, Tony 
> Bamonti and I have been working to recruit sponsors for the JSF. When 
> we describe what the JSF does, sponsors (as well as journalists and 
> the general public) often find it confusing that we're the Jabber 
> Software Foundation but we don't create or distribute software (in the

> way that, say, the Apache Software Foundation does). Instead, what the

> JSF does is manage and promote the Jabber protocol, thus setting 
> standards for use by the Jabber community. So I'm thinking it might be

> easier to communicate our mission if JSF stood for "Jabber Standards
Foundation".
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Peter
> 

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





More information about the Members mailing list