[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Fri May 23 15:33:33 CDT 2003


Tony,

> 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.... Whether other 
 > commercial entities decide to use the name or
> not is their business.   

It's not a question of *if* we can use the word Jabber, it's the reality 
that we don't want to use the term because another company has named 
their business using it.

The rest of the world will be using the term XMPP and not Jabber. Notice 
how recent articles only use the word XMPP and essentially ignore the 
term Jabber? For example:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/04/18/16imstandards_1.html

If the JSF wishes to have it's own standards widely adopted, it must use 
a name that isn't encumbered.

> 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.

The business term is already XMPP and it's as simple as that. It's not 
realistic to think that a term that is the name of a company will get 
widely adopted by the marketplace. How can we as a community 
legitimately promote a protocol when our name and even logo is so 
closely tied to a single company?

> 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 "chronic association" will never go away as long as Jabber Inc 
exists. I'm not suggesting you change your name, obviously. You've 
invested a lot into the Jabber brand and deserve to keep that and the 
good will that goes along with it. In fact, it's entirely fine with me 
if there remains a strong and vibrant "Jabber community".

However, the JSF has a very specific mission, which is to promote and 
extend the XMPP protocol. I firmly believe we can't do that effectively 
with our current name.

> 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
> together.

I wish it didn't have to happen, but it does. Still, it's not like 
anything all that vital to the community would be lost. We're talking 
about the *name* of the JSF -- not the people in the community or the 
technical work that has been done.

The facts remain:

  1) The Jabber name is tainted right now. You even admit this.
  2) There is no incentive for companies to adopt the Jabber 
terminology, so I don't see how it ever would be.
  3) Jabber is only known by an incredibly small percentage of IM users 
and business people compared to the recognition that XMPP will have.

>  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.

You're assuming that "Jabber" is an open, generic term, which it is not. 
It it is a term that is very tightly tied to a single commercial company.

> 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. 

YES! THANK YOU. This is exactly what may happen. And, as long as we use 
the term Jabber, other companies and individuals will have a *much* 
higher incentive to participate in those other organizations so as not 
to promote a competitor. Or, they may simply adopt XMPP and ignore the 
rest of the extensions we create.

We critically need the legitimacy to promote and extend an open 
protocol, and I still don't see how that can happen with Jabber in our name.

Regards,
Matt




More information about the Members mailing list