[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
tbamonti at jabber.com
Fri May 23 14:30:04 CDT 2003
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tucker [mailto:matt at jivesoftware.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 4:36 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
> Perhaps you could address my specific rebuttals to Matt's points?
> > 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
> > this.
> Again, this doesn't matter. It's of no consequence whether the Jabber
> trademark is unenforceable as Matt believes, or whether JINC
> the trademark. The fact remains that:
> 1) Jabber Inc is a commercial entity that uses the word Jabber to
> promote its business. This is perfectly fine, but it does
> mean that no
> other commercial entities want to use the word Jabber.
Sure JINC uses the word Jabber to promote its business, why wouldn't we.
But this doesn't mean others can't also use Jabber....and the point of the
trademark initiative with the JSF is to provide more clarity, structure and
latitude to others interested in using the mark while making sure there are
TM standards that everyone, including JINC needs to conform to. This
includes commercial entities wanting to use Jabber in their product or
company names. Whether other commercial entities decide to use the name or
not is their business.
I contend that the majority of the global market equates "Jabber" with the
protocol, technology and community, of which JINC is only one piece. There
are many web sites, servers, local advocacy groups and services worldwide
that liberally use the word Jabber. The term "Jabber" has gained
significant market/brand awareness not as an individual company, but as an
open, IM technology and it would be an absolute shame for the JSF and the
community to simply toss away 5 years of market and brand development.
Where there is confusion, the JSF and everyone in the Jabber community
should be working to resolve it, including JINC. As XMPP/Jabber adoption
continues to grow, the confusion will diminish. AND, as more companies DO
choose to use the term Jabber, it will help to alleviate any chronic
association with a single entitiy.
The JSF should be the keeper of the mark/brand and actively promote, license
AND enforce its proper use. I am currently working internally at JINC to
make sure that we use the mark in a manner that minimizes confusion AND take
every opportunity to clarify the difference between what "Jabber" means and
"Jabber, Inc.". I'll be the first to admit, there is still work to do, but
we are moving it in the right direction.
The point is, the Jabber community has alot invested in the name and market
awareness of Jabber and it would be foolish of the JSF to throw out the baby
with the bath water. This situation can and will improve if we all work
> 2) There is already significant confusion in the
> marketplace over the
> difference between Jabber and XMPP and even the fact that
> "Jabber" means
> open protocol rather than commercial company. There's no
> reason the JSF
> should perpetuate this.
I doubt if there's any more "confusion" in the marketplace between Jabber
and XMPP than there is between Web and HTTP....depending on who you classify
as the marketplace. But even that's besides the point because even if you
change the name from Jabber to FUD, there will be confusion between FUD and
XMPP unless the JSF (FSF:-)) and community work to clarify the difference.
And, as Matt Mankins, St. Peter and others have eloquently pointed out,
there IS a difference between XMPP and Jabber. XMP is simply a protocol
specification, Jabber is an extension of the XMPP protocol AND a community
AND a technology AND multiple software implementations AND a grand concept
of a next generation Internet infrastructure AND whatever we as the
community work together to make it be.
The potential conflicts with the IETF aside, I think its more likely than
not that, as XMPP becomes ratified and broadly adopted, there will be
multiple "organizations" or "consortiums" that decide to develop their own
extensions to XMPP....and the JSF won't be able to stop them....regardless
of whether we use XMPP in our name or not. But if we continue to leverage
the fact that we ARE the standards body of the Jabber community, leveraging
our broad market and brand awareness and adoption, I believe we can continue
to make Jabber something far more compelling than just a protocol
More information about the Members