[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
tbamonti at jabber.com
Thu May 22 17:20:21 CDT 2003
I wouldn't even try to improve on Matt's very eloquent justification for
retaining the name Jabber. But I am compelled to remind the membership that
Jabber, Inc. is proactively working with the JSF towards eventual transfer
of the mark to the Foundation. Legal agreements have been executed by both
parties outlining the terms, procedures and schedules for accomplishing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Mankins [mailto:mankins at media.mit.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 3:19 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
> > XMPP *will* be the term that everybody uses (does anyone feel
> > differenty?). With that in mind, it seems like we should be
> crafting our
> > message around that name rather than Jabber.
> Re: XMPP/Jabber.
> "Everybody" is a matter of audience.
> Technically, the protocol is XMPP. The technical people of the world
> (might) talk of this program or that containing XMPP support,
> just as they
> speak of an application containing SMTP, HTTP, etc. Acronyms are
> commonplace in our discipline and XMPP is not an anomaly
> however ugly it
> might look. I can't see XMPP taking off on a much wider audience
> however--which is the goal of the JSF.
> On the other hand, "Jabber" was born for a broad audience.
> Both users and
> technical people alike feel comfortable talking about Jabber,
> just as they
> might feel comfortable talking about "email" or the "web". It's a
> friendly, well chosen term. It would be foolish to blanket
> the world with
> XMPP when it already has Jabber. Also note that Jabber
> encompasses more
> than XMPP: it's a fuzzy conceptual class, just as "email" and
> "web", and
> this is not a weakness, but its strength.
> As far as the Jabber.com trademark issue, I believe lawyers
> would classify
> "jabber" as a weak trademark, as it's both a dictionary word
> and a trade
> word before the company existed (I believe). While officially they
> (Jabber.com) may own the trademark, what really matters is
> defendability--and if pressed, it's unclear to this observer
> at least if
> they would retain that mark. Contrast this to "Kodak" which is
> considered a strong trademark. ... of course this is no
> reason to view
> jabber.com as adversaries--I see them as partners advocating
> (perhaps lowercase j for the general term?)
> It's great that we are having this discussion, because I
> believe it gets
> at the ultimate point of the JSF: to promote the path from
> XMPP -> Jabber
> --to advance an idea from technical possibility to socially impactful
> reality. Jabber may have started out as "open IM", but it has the
> potential to move far beyond that, to be a term that
> encompasses a class
> of technologies that are a hybrid of synchronous and asynchronous
> communications like the world has never seen before.
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members