<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2654.59"> <TITLE>RE: [JDEV] Jabber, the Name</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Jabber has the potential to be much bigger than Jabber.com. It has the potential to become the presence, instant messaging, real-time peer-to-peer communication standard of the Internet, becoming as much a part of the net as SMTP, DNS, and HTTP. I believe we will someday have a standard protocol for this kind of communication, if not Jabber, at least something similar. However, if you look at these other ubiquitous protocols, they're not tied to any kind of branding or trademark restriction. People work to keep their software compatible because of professional pride and a desire for their product to work well, not for the sake of getting to display a logo. This kind of tactic reminds me more of Sun's struggle to control Java while still fostering community involvement. Although Java is successful (I'm speaking as a Java programmer, myself.) I think Sun's effort to control it has kept it from being as widely adopted as it could have been. I'm not saying that there's been no benefit from Sun's control of Java, but I do know of people who don't use it solely because it is under Sun control. The world is changing, and maybe Jabber.com will be the first to successfully walk this tight-rope. Or maybe the protocol will develop a life of it's own outside of Jabber.com, and may even shed the Jabebr name. It will be interesting to watch. Peace, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Iain Shigeoka [<A HREF="mailto:iainshigeoka@yahoo.com">mailto:iainshigeoka@yahoo.com</A>] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:59 AM To: jdev@jabber.org Subject: Re: [JDEV] Jabber, the Name 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 </BODY> </HTML>