XSF Discussion - 2023-03-08

I'm wondering if "we" could push the "Jabber" term as a facade for the public. This is linked to what is currently discussed on the ML.

Summary: some people are in favour of that, some people are not

Basically hidding the XMPP (that seems technical) and just talk about "the jabber network", the "jabber id" etc...

edhelas: welcome to my club

Linked to https://joinjabber.org/#

If you're in favour, I think you'd do better to support things like joinjabber.org, rather than try to achieve user-focused branding within the XSF

Jabber is a Trademark, and cannot be freely used, without a license.

The term XMPP can be freely used

without a license

Peter Waher: that's not how trademarks work. Jabber is a word and in some contexts may be restricted by trademark, just like all other words

https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/who-needs-a-license/ ✏

The argument over jabber vs xmpp or both isn't affected by trademark concerns but other things. Some people see jabber as the "old word" etc

Then the XSF should remove all license requirements for the use of Jabber

The XSF cannot do so, it doesn't hold the trademark.

Doesn’t matter. It has been assigned (or so it says) to enforce the license for the word/registered trademark ✏

Yes, under certain conditions

I'm sure there are *many* entities with a trademark on jabber, but Cisco has the one most people like to think about here

Those conditions don't allow removing all license requirements

> and you will have a major hassle with us

Again, if you’re not familiar with what the XSF says about the term Jabber: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/who-needs-a-license/ ✏

I suggest not to call your client app "JABBER" that's probably a TM violation 😅 but many other user of the word are unaffected, including of course "jabber id" and "jabber network"

Only because the XSF implicitly considers it “fair use”, or ignores it, or is unaware of it. ✏

Peter Waher: we *are* the XSF

The XSF doesn't get to decide what is fair use

There is no "them"

But it is at the discretion of the XSF

We are not the XSF; we are members of the XSF

The board makes the decisions

But the XSF (I assume) is a legal entity in its own right (legally)

Ultimately it's at the discretion of the trademark holder, but we have an agreement with them that gives the XSF the ability to grant licenses under specific conditions

Whatever we personally think has no significance, in legal terms.

> Ultimately it’s at the discretion of the trademark holder, but we have an agreement with them that gives the XSF the ability to grant licenses under specific conditions As it says on the page referenced above

I.e. it is not "free"

This discussion is irrelevant for JoinJabber anyway, as you're not the ones affected by the possible copyright infrigment suit :P

Peter Waher, I'm well aware what's on that page, my comments are based on the fact that you seem to think the XSF is more in control of the trademark than it actually is

Aaaaanyway, the "let's call the federated network the jabber network or the jabber compatible network" club meets on Wednesdays...

My hesitation to use the word Jabber doesn't come from the fact that it is old

But from the _unclear_ trademark situation

Daniel, yeah that's the issue for many.

However I don't think it's really relevant anyway. What we desperately need is a good product. And then people can just use the name of the product to refer to the product. Like mastodon

Just responding to this question: > I’m wondering if “we” could push the “Jabber” term as a facade for the public. This is linked to what is currently discussed on the ML. It was posted to the XSF Discussion room. If it’s restricted to “joinjabber”, is another matter. If it is a general question, XMPP is better than Jabber.

My position regarding the use of "Jabber", and its usage in joinjabber, is that it's a clear win when it comes to pronouncing it, and easier to remember than XMPP, and I'm the one taking legal risks so whatever

Indeed. My wife still calls it "talk to people in Conversations" even though she uses only gajim and Cheogram these days ;)

If there was a better word that isn't any of the two, I'd use it

Yes no argument that xmpp is a terrible name

> Indeed. My wife still calls it "talk to people in Conversations" even though she uses only gajim and Cheogram these days ;) Conversations is the new Jabber then ↺

We've had our share of bikeshedding sessions at JJ, and they don't lead anywhere

All trademark situations (and thus almost all English words) are at least somewhat unclear. But there are also pretty good limits to his a trademark can be enforced. There has to be a risk for commercial loss due to brand confusion and the entity must have a history of enforcing against certain uses

> We've had our share of bikeshedding sessions at JJ, and they don't lead anywhere That's what I'm trying to say. Ultimately one product will emerge and then we just use that products name. Or we don't see a product and then the discussion is pointless because users don't have a product to use

In the proposed cases there is no commercial confusion and the entity has a long history not only if non enforcement against these uses but even specifically allowing these uses ✏

> All trademark situations (and thus almost all English words) are at least somewhat unclear. But there are also pretty good limits to his a trademark can be enforced. There has to be a risk for commercial loss due to brand confusion and the entity must have a history of enforcing against certain uses This is only one perspective. There are others: For instance, we at IEEE cannot reference Jabber, since it’s a registered trademark. This comes from internal quirements at IEEE. Other similar oragnizations have similar rules.

Concretely, Cisco has no interest in shutting down something that is promoting "Jabber", when it's not clearly in conflict with their own product.

Also if they come for the money, they won't get much from me..

> Ultimately one product will emerge like, jabber?

Maybe

Peter Waher: oh sure, but there's no reason something like the IEEE would ever want to reference jabber anyway since it's a community thing. IEEE would talk about tech and the tech is xmpp

Is jabber still being developed?

point is that it already emerged and had its name being used

> Is jabber still being developed? The client named jabber still sees some releases

singpolyma: Again: I thought the question was generic; Should “we” promote “XMPP” or “Jabber”. If it’s restricted to joinjabber, is another matter.

Speaking of "they all call it Mastodon" Mastodon is a registered trademark also

“we” (again, not my words) here I assume to be the XSF. XSF should promote “XMPP” instead of “Jabber”, is my point of view.

Peter Waher: it's both. XMPP is the name of the tech/protocol

Like SMTP

Maybe the XSF shouldn't try to talk to end-users

Or HTTP

> Maybe the XSF shouldn't try to talk to end-users I actually don't think I should. But I'm pretty alone with that opinion

And it's fine that other people disagree

*it should

Because atm even if they don't (explicitely) try to, they're very much a starting point for many

Yeah, insofar as the XSF is a XEP publisher primarily then XMPP is the main word for the XSF of course ✏

Daniel, dunno, one or the other. But using "XMPP" to onboard users is only confusing IMO

"We make XEPs, you can get your own XEP by creating an account and you'll have to choose a server on one of these lists, have fun" :P

Terrible experience

Daniel, don't worry, you're not alone :)

> Daniel, dunno, one or the other. But using "XMPP" to onboard users is only confusing IMO I'm with you. If tried many times to just establish the term 'Conversations compatible'

XMPP → OpenChat

It's not just chat!!

sure, and I am the first to point out that XMPP is a technology to get data from A to B at its core

but everything else would just confuse users

So maybe, we do in the next iteration three RFCs

XMPP core, XMPP im and OpenChat (based the previous two)

It doesn't have to be an IETF thing. It can just be a marketing name

or, we do an OpenChat RFC right now, which describes that we require from a modern XMPP chat

just like modernxmpp

If users are reading the RFCs they're not just users anymore :)

Indeed

That disqualifies them from having nice names entirely

no, and I aggree that it doesn't have to be an RFC, but it also can't hurt to aim for RFC first

(/s)

They have great names. RFC1234

"Who is this rfc6120? How do I join it?"

For me this is a way more simple question. When I'm telling users about their address what do I call it? There are basically two options in use Jabber ID and XMPP Address

fwiw, RFCs also have names (titles), not just numbers ✏

yeah, and I wondered if we could establish the term OpenChat

I'd rather not go back to the past and do the OpenNoun thing if that's a literal suggestion

sure, you may dislike the name, but please propose better ones doing so :)

fwiw, the OpenNoun thing has a good reputation for me

I think my proposed name is pretty clear :)

Office Open XML? :)

I may have missed it in the backlog then

flow: "Jabber"

ahh ok, many will not dare to touch that name ✏

Their loss

it think it would be our loss

but maybe we can find a compromise: OpenJabber…

(I think that suggestion from me was only half serious, but I am not sure)

Could use the other half of the word and call it Wocky ;)

Being not a native speaker, I don't think I understand what appears to be a play on words and names

The JabberWocky is a Lewis Carroll poem.

ahh, thanks :)

But the word 'jabber' (talking quickly) isn't derived from that.

Yes, sorry, it was a bit of an oblique pun

no worries, I was merely pointing out that I wasn't able to follow :)

im starting to feel like open source is the "_new normal_" you know, like a new open source project is created every day or two

tried to do italic font lol

edhelas: I dislike promoting Cisco's client so much I automated fixing joinjabber in the hopes they'd point joinxmpp there https://joinxmpp.moparisthe.best/ :P

you mean webex? /s

thats the only cisco thing i know

MSavoritias (fae,ve): nope, there is Cisco Webex, but also Cisco Jabber. Their website for reference: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/unified-communications/jabber/index.html

there is?? that looks kind of like slack. heh never seen it before

MSavoritias (fae,ve): it's the first result when I search Jabber, which is one of the top reasons I hate the term :)

never searched it /shrug

moparisthebest: we just gotta get the Google juice back ;)

proper SEO and outreach

seems on topic with the mailing list

I only use ddg

Though yes I would like to see joinjabber outrank Cisco jabber in search results just to watch the resulting reaction from Cisco 🍿

🙄

My impression of 2023 Cisco is a company of mostly lawyers, none of whom know XMPP or the XSF exist, is that wrong?

no, but it's dangerous

Ge0rG: what's dangerous

Lawyers seeking revenue streams

isnt that oracle?

oracle sued google and got the L

>I only use ddg same

oops

>I only use ddg same