XSF Discussion - 2023-03-08


  1. edhelas

    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.

  2. MattJ

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

  3. edhelas

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

  4. singpolyma

    edhelas: welcome to my club

  5. edhelas

    Linked to https://joinjabber.org/#

  6. MattJ

    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

  7. Peter Waher

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

  8. Peter Waher

    The term XMPP can be freely used

  9. Peter Waher

    without a license

  10. singpolyma

    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

  11. Peter Waher

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

  12. Peter Waher

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

  13. singpolyma

    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

  14. Peter Waher

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

  15. Kev

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

  16. Peter Waher

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

  17. Peter Waher

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

  18. MattJ

    Yes, under certain conditions

  19. singpolyma

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

  20. MattJ

    Those conditions don't allow removing all license requirements

  21. Peter Waher

    > and you will have a major hassle with us

  22. Peter Waher

    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/

  23. Peter Waher

    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/

  24. singpolyma

    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"

  25. Peter Waher

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

  26. Peter Waher

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

  27. singpolyma

    Peter Waher: we *are* the XSF

  28. MattJ

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

  29. singpolyma

    There is no "them"

  30. Peter Waher

    But it is at the discretion of the XSF

  31. Peter Waher

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

  32. Peter Waher

    The board makes the decisions

  33. Peter Waher

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

  34. MattJ

    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

  35. Peter Waher

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

  36. Peter Waher

    > 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

  37. Peter Waher

    I.e. it is not "free"

  38. pep.

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

  39. MattJ

    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

  40. singpolyma

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

  41. Daniel

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

  42. Daniel

    But from the _unclear_ trademark situation

  43. pep.

    Daniel, yeah that's the issue for many.

  44. Daniel

    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

  45. Peter Waher

    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.

  46. pep.

    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

  47. singpolyma

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

  48. pep.

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

  49. Daniel

    Yes no argument that xmpp is a terrible name

  50. edhelas

    > 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

  51. pep.

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

  52. singpolyma

    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

  53. Daniel

    > 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

  54. singpolyma

    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 there uses

  55. singpolyma

    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

  56. Peter Waher

    > 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.

  57. pep.

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

  58. pep.

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

  59. raucao

    > Ultimately one product will emerge like, jabber?

  60. Daniel

    Maybe

  61. singpolyma

    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

  62. Daniel

    Is jabber still being developed?

  63. raucao

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

  64. singpolyma

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

  65. Peter Waher

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

  66. singpolyma

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

  67. Peter Waher

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

  68. singpolyma

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

  69. singpolyma

    Like SMTP

  70. pep.

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

  71. singpolyma

    Or HTTP

  72. Daniel

    > 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

  73. Daniel

    And it's fine that other people disagree

  74. Daniel

    *it should

  75. pep.

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

  76. singpolyma

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

  77. singpolyma

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

  78. pep.

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

  79. pep.

    "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

  80. pep.

    Terrible experience

  81. MattJ

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

  82. Daniel

    > 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'

  83. flow

    XMPP → OpenChat

  84. pep.

    It's not just chat!!

  85. flow

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

  86. flow

    but everything else would just confuse users

  87. flow

    So maybe, we do in the next iteration three RFCs

  88. flow

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

  89. pep.

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

  90. flow

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

  91. flow

    just like modernxmpp

  92. singpolyma

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

  93. pep.

    Indeed

  94. pep.

    That disqualifies them from having nice names entirely

  95. flow

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

  96. pep.

    (/s)

  97. singpolyma

    They have great names. RFC1234

  98. pep.

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

  99. flow

    fwiw, RFC also have names (titles), not just numbers

  100. singpolyma

    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

  101. flow

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

  102. flow

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

  103. singpolyma

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

  104. flow

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

  105. flow

    fwiw, the OpenNoun thing has a good reputation for me

  106. singpolyma

    I think my proposed name is pretty clear :)

  107. Kev

    Office Open XML? :)

  108. flow

    I may have missed it in the backlog then

  109. singpolyma

    flow: "Jabber"

  110. flow

    ahh ok, most will not dare to touch that name

  111. flow

    ahh ok, many will not dare to touch that name

  112. singpolyma

    Their loss

  113. flow

    it think it would be our loss

  114. flow

    but maybe we can find a compromise: OpenJabber…

  115. flow

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

  116. singpolyma

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

  117. flow

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

  118. Kev

    The JabberWocky is a Lewis Carroll poem.

  119. flow

    ahh, thanks :)

  120. Kev

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

  121. singpolyma

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

  122. flow

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

  123. mentos124

    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

  124. mentos124

    tried to do italic font lol

  125. moparisthebest

    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

  126. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    you mean webex? /s

  127. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    thats the only cisco thing i know

  128. wurstsalat

    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

  129. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

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

  130. moparisthebest

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

  131. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    never searched it /shrug

  132. singpolyma

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

  133. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    proper SEO and outreach

  134. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    seems on topic with the mailing list

  135. moparisthebest

    I only use ddg

  136. moparisthebest

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

  137. singpolyma

    🙄

  138. moparisthebest

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

  139. Ge0rG

    no, but it's dangerous

  140. moparisthebest

    Ge0rG: what's dangerous

  141. Ge0rG

    Lawyers seeking revenue streams

  142. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    isnt that oracle?

  143. mentos124

    oracle sued google and got the L

  144. mentos124

    >I only use ddg same

  145. mentos124

    oops

  146. mentos124

    >I only use ddg same