From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 17 14:41:35 2026
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
To: members@xmpp.org
Subject: [Members] Re: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re:
 XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:41:10 -0600
Message-ID: <b240b8fa-5c0c-4f37-b78a-bdd8cce7f3ad@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6771205.9mpyYltUg2@sinistra.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8176893082751883304=="

--===============8176893082751883304==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 7:48 AM, Jonas Sch=C3=A4fer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> as a holder of one of the "sublicenses" I'd like to weigh in with a couple =
of=20
> notes.
>
> On Freitag, 17. Juli 2026 15:05:40 Mitteleurop=C3=A4ische Sommerzeit Peter =
Saint-
> Andre wrote:
>> 1. I think people are getting worked about something that is no longer
>> relevant. Use of the JABBER mark in our community was common over 20
>> years ago but nowadays developers aren't asking to use the mark. We
>> changed the name of the technology to XMPP when we formed the XMPP WG at
>> the IETF in 2002 and subsequently the name of the JSF to the XSF. Why
>> are we spending cycles on this in 2026?
>
> Note 1: As pointed out in a board meeting a couple of weeks ago, trademark@=
 is=20
> currently dysfunctional and we don't know how long that has been. We don't =

> know whether there are people who would have liked to acquire a sublicense =
but=20
> have not been able to.

Come on, this is a small community in which all developers active enough to b=
e creating a named project know how to raise issues on email lists, in chatro=
oms, or via GitHub. If they send an email to a lesser-known alias, they know =
where to complain, which is just what you've done.

And if anyone would like to volunteer to actually help with iteam issues, fee=
l free. The last time I attempted to migrate the email lists to mailman3 it d=
idn't go so well and all I heard was complaints, not offers to assist.

> Note 2: I agree with others that the Jabber name is still a better name for=
=20
> the federated instant messaging network based on RFC 6120+ than "XMPP". It'=
s a=20
> much easier to pronounce word.
>
> It *does* have issues (like being basically burnt in a lot of tech circles =

> #JabberIs(Not)Dead) and there's the trademark baggage, but it's still the b=
est=20
> term we've got (Zimpy did not take off ;-)).
>
> IMO, XMPP is to Jabber like SMTP is to Email. (Even though XMPP should be t=
o=20
> Chat like what SMTP is to Email, but well, XMPP was too late for that.)

Web is easier to say than HTTP and email is easier to say than SMTP, but the =
browsers have names like Firefox, Brave, and Chrome, and the email clients ha=
ve names like Thunderbird. This is a red herring. Get creative with your soft=
ware names, as everyone else has over the last 20+ years (Conversations, Snik=
ket, Beagle, etc.).

>> 3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to European domicile, I have=20
>> suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to=20
>> "XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to=20
>> license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the=20
>> sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of=20
>> licensed uses of the mark, and that's no longer the case.
>
> Note 3: I think this stance is valid. However, I wonder what happens to=20
> existing "sublicensed" uses.=20

Why would their change? They were licensed under the old regime and there's n=
o reason for that to change. But IANAL.

> Is the name I have requested (JabberCat) still=20
> valid to use? This should IMO be clarified before such a move is made.

We can certainly process this late torrent of applications before the sublice=
nsing program goes away (if indeed it does - we've been talking about this mo=
ve from the U.S. to the E.U. for years).

> At the very least, if we cannot fully clarify the legal situation, we MUST =

> inform current "sublicense" holders that they should contact Cisco about th=
eir=20
> use and get a blessing from Cisco *before* the XSF-US is dissolved.

If the Board wishes to retain expensive legal counsel to clarify this matter,=
 they are free to do so.

Peter


--===============8176893082751883304==--


