[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
matt at jivesoftware.com
Tue May 27 22:43:42 CDT 2003
> I havent heard any non-commercial people complaining about the situation, it
> has only commercial people as far as I have seen so far.
It's true that commercial people such as myself have been more vocal.
However, two non-commercial/Open Source people have also posted in
support of a name change (which is roughly the same number that have
>>I think you're missing the point. Commercial companies and many
>>non-commercial projects will simply ignore the proprietary Jabber
>>terminology and just use the term XMPP. That's fine in general, and it
>>*is* what's going to happen. But, without a name change, that leaves the
>>JSF out in the cold -- companies and orgs will be much less likely to
>>join us and may ignore our protocol extensions as long as they are
>>branded with a competitor's name.
> So you assert, I personally dont believe that is true, just because you
> believe that it doesnt necessarily make it so.
I represent a commercial company, and our experience has been the following:
1) We are unable to use the Jabber brand because it is confusing to
our customers and is net negative marketing.
2) It's much harder for us to justify our time/monetary commitments to
the JSF even though we still see the value in doing so.
3) We will not be advertising compliance with any specifications that
use the Jabber brand.
Every other commercial company I've talked to says the exact same thing
(other than Jabber Inc.). I suppose it's possible we're all wrong, but
then again, it's also possible we're right. :)
Out of the Open Source and non-commercial people I've talked to -- they
are generally fond of the Jabber name but don't believe that it's right
that an open standard be branded the same as a commercial company.
Now, I realize there are a fair number of JSF members that don't give a
rip about commercial users of the protocol. However, we all benefit from
promoting an open standard and the JSF protocol extensions. Surely the
cause will be hurt if commercial companies aren't participating in that.
>>No, this is quite simply impossible. XMPP has already won as the
>>dominant terminology that will be used by the marketplace -- check out
>>all recent press activity if you don't agree with me. It's time to
>>adjust to this reality.
> The press != the world and user base, there are plenty of people that
> promote the name Jabber as the name of the service itself, infact most of
> the public servers do, as do a majority of the available clients (which is
> what the end user sees).
Please remember that my voice only represents a single viewpoint in this
debate and others supporting a name change have their own perspective.
Personally, I see the fact that XMPP will be the dominant terminology as
self-evident. Jabber has essentially no presence in the IM world today
compared to the main systems. I hope you'll agree with that point even
though it's the protocol we all know and love. The IETF process is about
to change all of that, but under the name XMPP and not Jabber. Any
company using the protocol will call it XMPP and not Jabber (as I hope
all we commercial companies have made it clear). And finally, even after
the "many years of huge brand success" you guys all talk about, every
single press article I've seen recently makes no mention of Jabber and
focuses exclusively on XMPP. Are you living in a dream world or is my
perspective somehow incredibly warped?
> Anyway all of this argument is moot, you just continue to state
> the same points over and over
From my perspective, we at least have points. :) The only reasons I've
heard against a name change are that (along with the answers we keep
making which don't get replies):
1) "Jabber is a very popular brand so we shouldn't give it up."
a) XMPP is on the road to being much more popular.
b) Commercial users simply won't use the Jabber brand.
c) It's inherently confusing to try to explain why extensions to
XMPP should be called "Jabber" instead of just "XMPP extensions".
d) Non-commercial users/Open Source projects should be able to use
terminology that doesn't promote commercial interests. We all benefit
from truly open and free terminology.
2) "I like the name Jabber."
* I do to, but since it's a commercially encumbered term, it's not
suitable as a name for an open protocol for the entire internet to adopt.
More information about the Members