Hi all,

The full Enforcement Agreement is now merged with the website source code. It should appear there over the next few hours. Peter's scan included Exhibit A, which the previously published version was missing. Exhibit A is the Jabber Trademark Position Statement, and having now read the three documents together (with the JTPS, which the published scan had omitted) I think it clarifies things, though not entirely in a comfortable direction.

Reading them as a set:
  • The License Agreement grants the JSF a perpetual, royalty-free licence to use the Mark, and §5 expressly says the JSF may not sublicense.
  • The Enforcement Agreement has the JSF administer third-party use of the Mark per the JTPS guidelines. But §1 frames this as "for the twelve-month period thereafter" following the Effective Date (the "Trial Period"), and §3 says the term runs for twelve months. §3 also provides that on termination other than by transfer of the Mark, JINC "shall again become solely responsible for administration of the Mark."
  • Exhibit A to the Enforcement Agreement (the JTPS) is where the programme we actually run is described: JABBER in product/company names requires a licence "available through the Jabber Software Foundation," applications via the JSF website, and so on. It also describes itself as proposed guidelines to be refined between JINC and the JSF.
  • The Letter of Intent, the Enforcement Agreement §2, and the JTPS all contemplate ownership of the Mark transferring to the JSF after 12 months of successful administration, which, as Peter notes, never happened.
So my reading is that what we call sublicensing is the JTPS-based administration arrangement, and that arrangement was structured as a twelve-month trial ending either in transfer of the Mark or in reversion to JINC. Peter has said he doesn't think the extension beyond the trial period was properly documented, and that there's nothing on file about Cisco affirming the arrangement in 2008.

Before I take this any further: is there something I'm missing? Specifically:
  • Is there any record of the Enforcement Agreement being extended, renewed, or superseded after May 2004? Peter, you mentioned you'd need to dig further. Is that worth doing, or are you confident the safe contains everything?
  • Peter - do you recall anything about how the arrangement was treated after the trial period ended? Was there a decision, or did it simply continue in practice?
  • Peter - I understand you've been in contact with JINC/Cisco counsel at various points well after 2003. What did that contact cover, and is any of it in writing? If Cisco's lawyers ever acknowledged the Foundation's role in administering the Mark, that's arguably the most relevant thing we have.
To be clear, I'm not proposing the Board decide anything on this now. I'm trying to establish what we actually know before it comes back to the agenda. It's been suggested that the practical position may differ from the paperwork, which is plausible: if Cisco has been aware of the Foundation's licensing activity for two decades and never objected, that may well matter. Whether an agreement whose term clause says twelve months survived twenty-two years of both parties acting as if it did is a question about Colorado contract law. That's one I'd rather we find out than assume.

Kind regards,

  Guus

On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:35 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
The enforcement agreement says that the JSF shall administer use of the
mark consistent with the position statement - this is what in other
places and contexts we have called sublicensing, although that term is
not used in the enforcement agreement. Unfortunately, IIRC the extension
of that agreement beyond the trial period (i.e., the first 12 months)
might not have been properly documented. Also, the mark itself was never
transferred to the JSF.

On 7/3/26 5:25 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
> Aren't these the same documents that are already linked on the
> background page? I think the thing missing is an agreement that permits
> the sublicensing by the JSF/XSF.
>
>
> On 2 July 2026 18:11:22 CEST, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
>
>     Attached please find scanned copies of:
>
>     - A letter of intent between Jabber Inc. and the Jabber Software
>     Foundation, dated December 16, 2002
>     - A trademark licensing agreement between Jabber Inc. and the Jabber
>     Software Foundation, dated March 7, 2003
>     - A trademark enforcement agreement between Jabber Inc. and the
>     Jabber Software Foundation, dated May 2, 2003
>
>     For the avoidance of doubt, I believe that these are the only
>     documents I have on file (in a locked, fireproof safe at my house)
>     related to the trademark licensing agreement. For example, I do not
>     believe that I have any documents on file related to affirmation
>     that Cisco Systems Inc. would honor the trademark licensing
>     agreement upon its acquisition of Jabber Inc. on Halloween, 2008. It
>     is possible that such documents exist, but I would need to do more
>     digging in order to find them.
>
>     I would most appreciate it if someone would be so kind as to submit
>     a PR against the XSF website so that these documents will be
>     publicly available there.
>
>     Peter
>
>     On Tue, Jun 30, 2026, at 9:50 AM, Ralph Meijer wrote:
>>     On 04/06/2026 15.50, Dave Cridland wrote:
>>>     [..]
>>>     Very specifically on these, I think it would be useful to
>>>     classify the IPR and related assets that the existing XSF has. My
>>>     non-exhaustive guesswork gives me:
>>>
>>>     [..]
>>>     * Trademark licences (I think the XSF has a trademark licence for
>>>     Jabber, though I can't find it)
>>
>>     This document can be found here <https://xmpp.org/docs/
>>     Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf <https://xmpp.org/docs/
>>     Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf>>, as linked from <https://
>>     xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/ <https://xmpp.org/
>>     about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/>>. Note that this document
>>     specifically disallows sublicensing, but read on below.
>>
>>>     * Trademark sublicensor: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-
>>>     trademark/ <https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/>
>>
>>
>>     Even though the JabberⓇ Trademark License Agreement clearly
>>     asserts that there is an agreement between the XSF and Cisco to
>>     offer a sublicensing program, we do not currently have any public
>>     document that explicitly shows this. I've been working with Peter
>>     to assess the relevant documents and whether we can make them
>>     publicly available. If so, we will make sure to add them to this
>>     section of the XSF website.
>>
>>     I will provide an update when I have more to share.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Ralph
>>
>