Friendly XMPP Branding (Re: [Standards] XMPP vs. Jabber)

Matthew Wild mwild1+jig at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 13:53:23 UTC 2007


Am I missing something...? What's wrong with Jabber??

Yes, I am aware it is trademarked, but I thought there was agreement between
the J... er... XSF and Jabber Inc. about the use of the trademark?

Is a name change really worth it, considering 'Jabber' is just getting known
by the average user, and already known by enough to make a change confusing?
A name change would throw all that away, and put us back where we started.

I don't know why this conversation is happening. If it really is impossible
to keep the name Jabber, tell me... why?

Matthew.

On 3/13/07, Matthias Wimmer <m at tthias.eu> wrote:
>
> Justin Karneges schrieb:
> > The presence of "xim" domains is not surprising, since it is such a
> short
> > word.  What is surprising is that it isn't being used very well (xim.orgis
> > Canada drugs?   xim.com falls just shy of a domain-squatting
> portal?).  With
> > all these different companies in the 'xim' space, I don't think we'd
> have any
> > problem using the name as long as no one has it trademarked for IM.
> >
>
> http://www.suse.de/~mfabian/suse-cjk/xim.html<http://www.suse.de/%7Emfabian/suse-cjk/xim.html>
>
> XIM seems to be already used as the name of a protocol.
>
>
> Matthias
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20070313/0345f62c/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list