Thanks Peter,
That answers what I was asking. So to be clear on where that leaves us: the
arrangement was extended past the trial period in practice, but there's no
documentation of the extension, and nothing further in the file.
Peter's suggestion (don't carry the sublicensing authority over to XSF-EU,
and point any future applicant to Cisco directly) seems like a sensible
default to me, and it sidesteps most of this.
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.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026 at 4:57 PM Kevin Smith via Members <members(a)xmpp.org>
wrote:
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:48, eevvoor via Members
<members(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
On 7/17/26 4:45 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members <members(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/17/26 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Come on, this is a small community in which all developers active
enough to be creating a named project know how to raise issues on email
lists, in chatrooms, 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.
>>
>> If you want to tell a normal person to install an XMPP app it is a
show
stopper to say "XMPP". THis does not have to do anything with the size
of our XMPP community.
A normal
person is not sublicensing a Jabber trademark.
/K
Correct. But being able to use the term "Jabber" as a dev affects the
normal people who will use the app.
That wasn’t the bit you trimmed and replied to, which was discussing that
the email address for the trademark program was defunct.
/K