[JDEV] AOL Corporate Teamwork

[Anders Qvist]

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Chris wrote:

> On 08/29/1999 at 07:07 AM Jeremy Weatherford wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Kemal 'disq' Hadimli wrote:
> >
> >> > On Sat Aug 28, Eliot Landrum wrote:
> >> > > Sorry Jon, I personally would rather wait for the updates than to
> >> > > have to have an extra link in my client.
> >> me too. aol sucks.
> >
> >
> >Guys, think about what you're saying.  You're saying "_I_ don't want AOL
> >logos on my client.  _I_ don't mind waiting."  It's the developers who
> >make those decisions.  Think about whether you're going to be the same
> >guys who complain because it's taking too long to implement a new feature.
> >I'm not saying you will be, but just think about it.
> >
> >I think it's a good idea to cooperate with AOL.  From what I've seen of
> >existing open-source protocol libraries, the understanding of AIM's
> >protocol is not perfect.  Keeping in step with their client would be neat,
> >to boot.
> >
> >I can't say that I agree with the logo idea right now, although I'm sure a
> >fairly unobtrusive place for it can be found, and at that point, it should
> >go before the 'Jabber community'.
> >
> 
> I am strongly inclined to agree with Eliot and Kemal. I don't want
> Jabber to be linked to corporate "interests". Why? Because what if I
> have a problem with AOL? I can choose not to ever use AIM or talk to
> people on AOL through that transport, but if Jabber is tied to AOL like
> this (at the transport/server level) then all the clients would have to
> have the banner. 

In fact, we cannot place any demands on client implementations at all,
because there is no limitation on who is allowed to implement
Jabber-talking sofware (nor can there be, without serious violation of
the spirit of Open Source).

> Consider that Jabber would also then be paying for the ability to talk to AIM
> users. Granted its more like bartering than paying cash, but do we want to be
> paying for the ability to talk to other transports? What if some other IM
> "provider" decides that it would like to go that route?

If someone is not interested in being interoperable, that is their
problem. If AOL is not willing to expend the tiny amount of
resources needed to fork over protocol specs and some token support
for getting access to the Jabber user base, I'm not interested.

Remember: before getting a Jabber user base, they won't take an
interest in us, and after we get a user base, we'll be competition.
That means we'll have a bargaining position, which we can use to
squeeze consessions out of them.

Which brings up another interesting question: Does AOL/ICQ users sign
some agreement when they create a new account? If they do,
client-creating transport are going to have some difficulty with
mimicing that behaviour, since there is really no provision in the Jabber
protocol for creating question/answer stuff. Not impossible, but
difficult and likely clumsy (and anybody can turn it off anyway). If
we ignore it and create accounts anyway, we're gonna get a pack of
lawyers yapping up our tree.

Anders "Quest" Qvist
NetGuide Scandinavia

And we who listen to the sky, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down, to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand;
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.

-- Catherine Faber, "The Word of God"