> retain our ability to issue trademark sub-licenses

what ability ? If we read the same email I think Peter said there exist 0 documents saying XSF/JSF ever had this ability, seems absurd to continue pretending like we do? If I was one of these supposed "sub-licensees" I'd be very nervous and stop using it immediately.

If I didn't think they were all on this thread already I'd suggest the board contact them all and tell them they are on their own.

But I would suggest board stop advertising sublicensing immediately.


On July 21, 2026 9:25:59 AM EDT, Georg Lukas <georg@op-co.de> wrote:
Hello,

* Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinderen@gmail.com> [2026-07-17 17:32]:
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.

I can understand the direction this is heading, and that this is the
most pragmatic position.

However, as one of the long-term proponents of using "Jabber" for the
federated network and "XMPP" for the protocol, I would hope for a way to
retain our ability to issue trademark sub-licenses, or at least a "last
opportunity" window to request trademark licenses before the XSF-US
shuts down.

As a developer, I don't see a realistic chance to approach the Cisco
Systmes Inc conglomerate in order to obtain a trademark license from
them, especially given what Peter wrote about their loss of
institutional knowledge.

The USPTO listing has FENWICK & WEST LLP listed as the responsible law
firm: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/76130296
I'm not sure if I would dare contacting them to ask for a trademark
permit.

Also it doesn't look like Cisco is actualy abandoning their own use of
the trademark - it was renewed in 2023, and the Cisco Jabber
applications are still made available to users.

So to me, a shutdown of XSF-US would mean the sad and effective end to
our (as a community) ability to create new projects with Jabber in their
name.

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.

So in order of preference:

1. Retain a stub XSF-US for the (sole?) purpose of issuing Jabber®
   sub-licenses.

2. Wind down XSF-US, give developers a last chance to register a
   trademark sub-license for their favorite JabberProject.

3. Wind down XSF-US.

I guess that if existing licenses remain valid, a respective public
notice on the website (plus maybe a letter to the registrants' email
addresses) would be sufficient in cases #2 and #3.


Georg