[JDEV] Jabber, the Name

[Mathew Johnston]

Jabber.com did not start the Jabber project. As far as I know, Jer and friends
did :)  Jabber.com, as I believe Michael said, bough the trademark from someone who already owned the name "Jabber". This other organization was going to tell
Jer that we (the community) could not use the name "Jabber". Thus, Jabber.com
did do a good thing, but they did not start Jabber; thus the controversy.
Most people think that "Jabber" should be controlled by the community, and are
worried that Jabber.com may control the name to benifit them, as opposed to
the community.

Mathew Johnston

On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 05:40:18PM -0400, Dixon Canario wrote:
> Thanks for that... I couldn't found those words earlier.....
> 
> " IT IS OPEN SOURCE BUT IT IS THEIR STUFF...... "
> a lot of people here is trying to take over the whole project that a few
> started..
> 
> peace,
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdev-admin at jabber.org [mailto:jdev-admin at jabber.org]On Behalf Of
> Maciek Borowka
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 3:55 PM
> To: jdev at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] Jabber, the Name
> 
> 
> What do you mean by compatibility test for client? It must support ALL
> the features of protocol? There is a lot of clients that don't implement
> them all, especially file transfer or XHTML.
> I think, we should choose some features for the test, the only problem
> I see is what actually should we choose ;). Any ideas?
> 
> By the way: in my opinion the best solution should be to leave Jabber.com
> with
> the logo and "Jabber" name and invent something else for the community.
> Unfortunately for us all, Dixon Canario is right (even if I don't like that
> he treated us like the "sons of #@%!%"):  "it is open source, but it
> is still their stuff".
> 
> It was my two words to the discussion. Thank you ;)
> 
> /M at ciek
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 15 May 2001 11:59:12 -0500 Iain Shigeoka wrote:
> 
> > At 09:43 AM 5/15/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> > >On Monday, May 14, 2001, at 12:48 PM, Flora Brunas wrote:
> > >
> > >>Is Jabber.com the only commercial company allowed to
> > >>use the word "Jabber" for their company names and
> > >>products?  This is not fair.
> > >
> > >I agree. And this brings up a tangential question: what are the rules for
> > >Jabber clients' use of the Jabber "lightbulb" logo, and where can I get a
> > >canonical image of the logo to use in my client? I haven't seen any on
> the
> > >websites (wherever the logo appears it's joined into some other artwork
> in
> > >such a way that extracting it would be beyond my artistic skills.)
> >
> > Hmm.  Yes.  I think it may be nice if/when we get true formalized protocol
> > docs out to create compatibility tests (server and client).  A client that
> > passes the test could use a "powered by Jabber" type of logo...  It would
> > be up to jabber.com and the Foundation to decide if that would be the
> > lightbulb or another logo...
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > -iain
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jdev mailing list
> > jdev at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> 
> 
> --
> Join the Army, meet interesting people and kill them.
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev