You really only have 2 choices here, let both the commercial and free
products be called Jabber, or do like sun did and keep the open source and
commercial names separate (Forte and NetBeans).
I see a few more choices. There's a distinction between using the name "Jabber" as part of a product name, vs. simply declaring the product as "Jabber compatible" (and of course using the word "Jabber" or the light bulb logo in the UI.)
I don't really have a problem with Jabber.com restricting the use of Jabber in product or company names. But trying to prevent commercial products from using the name "Jabber" to indicate compatibility would be a horrible move that would cripple the Jabber project. Fortunately it doesn't sound as though Jabber.com is making any such moves.
It would be fine if Jabber.com or the Jabber Foundation want to establish some kind of testing as a requirement for declaring Jabber compatibility (the way Sun has done with Java) but as others have pointed out, it's going to be quite a while before the Jabber protocols are well enough defined for that to be possible. (I for one would be overjoyed if there were a rigorous compatibility spec and test kit I could use with my client...)
�Jens
