That is the essential point.  To continue to debate the Jobava-Prie-London naming convention is pointless.  Just as debating the name of the Benko Gambit as the Volga Gambit has been rendered pointless.  Like it or not, continuing this debate is akin to howling at the moon...

Introduction To The London System & Jobava London System...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/the-london-system

And is the Jobava London considered to be an aggressive opening for white?

Yes

Bump

Borabump

Names and fashion can change, though. There is no law that keeps you from publicly calling an opening by a different name than what is the most conventional. It comes at the risk of confusion, from people who are not familiar with your terminology, but that might be a risk a person doesn't mind taking. NikkiLikeChikki even brought up earlier that an opening can have more than one name in regular use, because there are different things that make one name desirable to use to people versus another.

If your name makes sense, even if it's not yet mainstream, who knows, it could catch on, or at least people might respect your usage of that name, or alternatively they might think of it as a nickname, and nicknames aren't a bad thing. People like Eric Rosen and Simon Williams might be listened to, but what all those players are really doing is looking at what is already the social convention and picking something within that, it's not like they are necessarily inventing a name. They are just recognizing a trend that is already there, and perhaps popularizing the trend, but the trend was already probably well in existence before "famous" people followed it. If your trend picks up with a lot of people, then eventually famous players might notice that and recognize it.

Something to clear up though is that, I do think that a famous player can often make an unpopular phrase popular if they use it, but it's not necessarily something that they would commonly feel like doing. If they are messing around and feel like inventing a name, they might do that, but I think even they just generally want to use a name that seems sensible, and usually something within the range of social convention will be what they pick, although again this can change over time.

In other words, just because famous players can singlehandedly popularize names, that doesn't necessarily mean that they often do. A lot of times they just prefer to parrot a term that is already somewhat conventional. In other words, I wouldn't look at famous players using a term as some kind of strict "permission" for other people to use it, and that instead it's often somewhat the other way around, with new names first being used in obscure contexts and then gradually becoming more popular and eventually being recognized by famous people.

Since there are no hard and fast rules on names, if you are willing to risk some confusion, you can try using names that you think make sense but are not conventional (you don't need to be a famous person to be a part of that conversation). So this would usually make sense to do in more casual contexts, but again, there is no hard and fast rule about how you should name things. Maybe the name will catch on, maybe it won't, but there isn't a clear right or wrong when it comes to picking a name to use, there is just conventional and less conventional. Conventional isn't always best

No it isn't a London. Far more like a badly played Veresov

Fighting words 

a good post.

London System was originally a defence for black, wasn't it? Usually thought to be effective against g3 setups. I'm playing one at the moment, as black in a 3-day.

JoJo's Bizarre Adventure in London.

So there is no move order that can be played where the chess.com analysis will label it "jobava?"

It is always calling it "Queens pawn opening: Chigorin Variation"