The license itself states that existing licenses are perpetual, given good conduct. Besides the XSF, Cisco is still obligated to assure this to be the case.

I believe that if we'd want to remove uncertainty when the XSF changes domicile, the best approach is to simply ask Cisco to provide a letter to recognize the new entity as its successor.

ralphm

On 17 July 2026 17:54:31 CEST, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 9:31 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
The one part I don't think we can simply leave open is what happens to existing sublicensed uses when XSF-US is dissolved (as not all uses are strictly historic/now defunct). Jonas has raised this, and it's the thing I'd most want to get right. I'd like to hear from current holders on how they would prefer it be handled before settling on any particular process. Some form of clarity for them before the US entity winds down feels like a duty we have regardless of how we read the paperwork.

I can ask about this on the open-source foundations list - we might not be the first organization to face this issue and in any case we could find legal counsel who could advise us.

Peter