[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu
Tue May 27 16:26:03 CDT 2003
On Tue, May 27, 2003 at 11:24:13AM -0700, Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:
> I feel that if you license the software as BSD and you implement the
> reference components the Open IM community can concentrated on using the
> components that will be certified to work with each other and build
> their differentiation on how their software implements a solution with
> the reference software and protocol. This would allow for quicker
> implementation of XMPP/Jabber solutions, instead of spending resource
> implementing the protocol all over again.
Thinking aloud here.
One of the things jabber.org is associated with is jabberd, the open source
implementation of a Jabber server. Through time, jabber.org became the home
of the Jabber Software Foundation. Still, reading the latest press release
by Jabber Inc., the site is seen as the origin of the jabberd server and
thus the JSF has some (old) software? The license of the software says
the licensor is Jabber, Inc.
Jabberd version 2 is not under the JOSL I believe, and is copyrighted
by several individuals. Do we view this as a reference implementation? Is
it a piece of software we are going to promote like jabberd 1.4.2 with
quickstart packages? Is /that/ fair if you say we shouldn't write/release
software *as* JSF?
Let me make it clear that I am not saying we /should/ release software, but
I am contemplating what we are currently doing and what we should do in
Having reference implementation for protocols is probably a good thing. The
question is whether we will make the writing/releasing a JSF effort or that
we choose to endorse the (required) open source implementation of such
a protocol. Maybe something else?
Back to the original topic. As I said early on, I don't view the JSF as a
purely standards body. We also promote the Jabber platform by being present on
conferences, etc (marketing-jig). We provide documentation apart from the
protocol specifications. We provide lists of Jabber software, and provide
JabberStudio to house projects (with or without the source). In short
we are the hub where all things Jabber comes together.
So, the JSF is not /only/ about standards. It is also not only about
software. I don't see the need to change our name. I like the acronym and
logo. Iff we change it, maybe just Jabber Foundation would be better, or
a nice replacement s-word.
On having Jabber in our name. I followed the whole discussion but am far from
convinced we should remove that from our name. Jabber (as a noun) exactly
represents what Jabber (the platform) is about. XMPP is yet another acronym,
good for the IETF, etc, but nothing to make T-shirts about. I have been
around for a long time, and love Jabber, the lightbulb and the community.
The argument that having to promote the name Jabber hurts your business because
it endorses Jabber, Inc. is an odd one. I will probably step on toes here, but
if you cannot explain the difference between Jabber, Inc., the JSF, a protocol
suite called 'Jabber IM Basic', your company and its products... Well I think
than maybe you should have tried harder. Today I told a relatively Jabber newby
(a co-worker in a major research lab) about the whole discussion. He couldn't
see the problem either.
If you make a product and can't explain why it is good and in what kind of
marketplace it is, you don't have your act together. If you make good stuff,
people will want it. If you make enough of it, Jabber, Inc. might even become
less relevant and become just another company making Jabber products.
One interesting thing about the whole comparison to HTTP and the web. Jabber
(by that name) will hopefully become as obiquitous as the web, or maybe become
it (maybe called web). I just re-read Chapter 6 of Peer-to-Peer  and think
we are getting there. I couldn't help noticing that Jabber, Inc is a subsidary
of Webb (Interactive Services).
More information about the Members