Re: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
3 Jul
2026
3 Jul
'26
12:25 p.m.
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(a)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>, as linked from
<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/
>
> 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
>
3 Jul
3 Jul
12:34 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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(a)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
15 Jul
15 Jul
8:18 a.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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(a)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(a)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
17 Jul
17 Jul
2:05 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
Hallo Guus,
A few points:
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?
2. The agreements were extended beyond the trial period but I don't have
documentation of that extension. I don't recall exactly what was
happening at JINC at the time, but we might have been in the midst of a
CEO transition. I have looked in my folders and I don't see anything. If
I had it, I would have posted it years ago.
3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to European domicile, I have
suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to
"XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to
license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the
sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of
licensed uses of the mark, and that's no longer the case.
Peter
On 7/15/26 1:18 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf
<https://xmpp.org/docs/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf>>,
as linked from <https://
> xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/ <http://
xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/> <https://xmpp.org/
<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-
<https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber->
>> trademark/
<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
2:28 p.m.
New subject: Jabber along with XMPP as name
Dear Peter,
we discuss this because still nowadays, in 2026, people, even noobs, use
the word "Jabber" and is way easier and thereby also more noob-friendly
to use the word "Jabber".
eevvoor
xmpp:eevvoor@jabber.fr
On 7/17/26 3:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hallo Guus,
A few points:
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?
2. The agreements were extended beyond the trial period but I don't have
documentation of that extension. I don't recall exactly what was
happening at JINC at the time, but we might have been in the midst of a
CEO transition. I have looked in my folders and I don't see anything. If
I had it, I would have posted it years ago.
3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to European domicile, I have
suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to
"XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to
license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the
sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of
licensed uses of the mark, and that's no longer the case.
Peter
On 7/15/26 1:18 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf
<https://xmpp.org/docs/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf>>,
as linked from <https://
> xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/ <http://
xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/> <https://xmpp.org/
<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-
<https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber->
>> trademark/
<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
2:30 p.m.
New subject: Jabber along with XMPP as name
oh, somehow I deleted the "easier to pronounce"
On 7/17/26 3:28 PM, eevvoor via Members wrote:
Dear Peter,
we discuss this because still nowadays, in 2026, people, even noobs, use
the word "Jabber" and is way easier and thereby also more noob-friendly
to use the word "Jabber".
eevvoor
xmpp:eevvoor@jabber.fr
On 7/17/26 3:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hallo Guus,
A few points:
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?
2. The agreements were extended beyond the trial period but I don't
have documentation of that extension. I don't recall exactly what was
happening at JINC at the time, but we might have been in the midst of
a CEO transition. I have looked in my folders and I don't see
anything. If I had it, I would have posted it years ago.
3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to European domicile, I have
suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority
to "XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to
license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the
sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of
licensed uses of the mark, and that's no longer the case.
Peter
On 7/15/26 1:18 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf
<https://xmpp.org/docs/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf>>,
as linked from <https://
> xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/ <http://
xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/> <https://xmpp.org/
<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-
<https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber->
>> trademark/
<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
>
3:31 p.m.
New subject: Jabber along with XMPP as name
However, this is a different type of use than what the sublicensing program is for:
allowing products or companies to use Jabber as part of their name. There are established
rules for using trademarks in general, and they don't involve the XSF. All of this is
explained here: <https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/usage-guidelines/>
ralphm
On 17 July 2026 15:28:54 CEST, eevvoor via Members <members(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
Dear Peter,
we discuss this because still nowadays, in 2026, people, even noobs, use the word
"Jabber" and is way easier and thereby also more noob-friendly to use the word
"Jabber".
eevvoor
xmpp:eevvoor@jabber.fr
On 7/17/26 3:05 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Hallo Guus,
A few points:
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?
2. The agreements were extended beyond the trial period but I don't have
documentation of that extension. I don't recall exactly what was happening at JINC at
the time, but we might have been in the midst of a CEO transition. I have looked in my
folders and I don't see anything. If I had it, I would have posted it years ago.
3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to European domicile, I have suggested that we not
attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to "XSF-EU"; at that point, if
the rare open-source project wants to license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco.
We set up the sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of licensed
uses of the mark, and that's no longer the case.
Peter
On 7/15/26 1:18 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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(a)stpeter.im
<mailto: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/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf
<https://xmpp.org/docs/
<https://xmpp.org/docs/>
> Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf>>,
as linked from <https://
> xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/ <http://
xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/> <https://xmpp.org/
<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-
<https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber->
>> trademark/
<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
>
2:48 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
Hello,
as a holder of one of the "sublicenses" I'd like to weigh in with a couple
of
notes.
On Freitag, 17. Juli 2026 15:05:40 Mitteleuropäische 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
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
have not been able to.
Note 2: I agree with others that the Jabber name is still a better name for
the federated instant messaging network based on RFC 6120+ than "XMPP". It's
a
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 best
term we've got (Zimpy did not take off ;-)).
IMO, XMPP is to Jabber like SMTP is to Email. (Even though XMPP should be to
Chat like what SMTP is to Email, but well, XMPP was too late for that.)
3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to European
domicile, I have
suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to
"XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to
license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the
sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of
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
existing "sublicensed" uses. Is the name I have requested (JabberCat) still
valid to use? This should IMO be clarified before such a move is made.
At the very least, if we cannot fully clarify the legal situation, we MUST
inform current "sublicense" holders that they should contact Cisco about their
use and get a blessing from Cisco *before* the XSF-US is dissolved.
kind regards,
Jonas
3:09 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
I agree with Jonas in all points and very nice comparison:
SMTP like XMPP
e-mail like jabber
I will try to remember this.
eevvoor
On 7/17/26 3:48 PM, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
Hello,
as a holder of one of the "sublicenses" I'd like to weigh in with a couple
of
notes.
On Freitag, 17. Juli 2026 15:05:40 Mitteleuropäische 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
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
have not been able to.
Note 2: I agree with others that the Jabber name is still a better name for
the federated instant messaging network based on RFC 6120+ than "XMPP".
It's a
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 best
term we've got (Zimpy did not take off ;-)).
IMO, XMPP is to Jabber like SMTP is to Email. (Even though XMPP should be to
Chat like what SMTP is to Email, but well, XMPP was too late for that.)
3. If the XSF moves from U.S. domicile to
European domicile, I have
suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to
"XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to
license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the
sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of
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
existing "sublicensed" uses. Is the name I have requested (JabberCat) still
valid to use? This should IMO be clarified before such a move is made.
At the very least, if we cannot fully clarify the legal situation, we MUST
inform current "sublicense" holders that they should contact Cisco about their
use and get a blessing from Cisco *before* the XSF-US is dissolved.
kind regards,
Jonas
3:41 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 7:48 AM, Jonas Schäfer wrote:
Why would their change? They were licensed under the old regime and there's no reason
for that to change. But IANAL.
Hello,
as a holder of one of the "sublicenses" I'd like to weigh in with a couple
of
notes.
On Freitag, 17. Juli 2026 15:05:40 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit 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.
And if anyone would like to volunteer to actually help with iteam issues, feel free. The
last time I attempted to migrate the email lists to mailman3 it didn't go so well and
all I heard was complaints, not offers to assist.
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
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
have not been able to. Note 2: I agree with others that the Jabber name is
still a better name for
the federated instant messaging network based on RFC 6120+ than "XMPP".
It's a
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 best
term we've got (Zimpy did not take off ;-)).
IMO, XMPP is to Jabber like SMTP is to Email. (Even though XMPP should be to
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 have names like Thunderbird.
This is a red herring. Get creative with your software names, as everyone else has over
the last 20+ years (Conversations, Snikket, Beagle, etc.).
3. If the XSF
moves from U.S. domicile to European domicile, I have
suggested that we not attempt to transfer the sublicensing authority to
"XSF-EU"; at that point, if the rare open-source project wants to
license the mark, it can do so directly with Cisco. We set up the
sublicensing program only because we foresaw the need for lots of
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
existing "sublicensed" uses. Is the name I have requested (JabberCat) still
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 sublicensing program
goes away (if indeed it does - we've been talking about this move 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 their
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
3:44 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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.
3:45 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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:
A normal person is not sublicensing a Jabber trademark.
/K
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.
3:48 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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:
Correct. But being able to use the term "Jabber" as a dev affects the
normal people who will use the app.
If it is only abolished in the app / program's name that is already
helpful but of course it would be natural to use the term jabber in your
app's name ...
On 7/17/26 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A normal person is not sublicensing a Jabber trademark.
/K 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.
3:52 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 8:48 AM, eevvoor via Members wrote:
On 7/17/26 4:45 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Sorry, but I call bullshit. Lots of people seem to be using Conversations, Snikket, and
all sorts of other apps. We haven't actively been using JABBER in software names in 20
years. You can even say "Conversations is a great Jabber app" (that's fair
use) but you don't need to use the JABBER mark in your software name.
Peter
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members
<members(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
Correct. But being able to use the term "Jabber" as a dev affects the
normal people who will use the app.
If it is only abolished in the app / program's name that is already
helpful but of course it would be natural to use the term jabber in your
app's name ...
On 7/17/26 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A normal person is not sublicensing a Jabber trademark.
/K 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.
3:57 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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:
That wasn’t the bit you trimmed and replied to, which was discussing that the email
address for the trademark program was defunct.
/K
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members
<members(a)xmpp.org> wrote:
Correct. But being able to use the term "Jabber" as a dev affects the normal
people who will use the app.
On 7/17/26 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
A normal person is not sublicensing a Jabber trademark.
/K 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.
4:31 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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:
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
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
4:54 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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
5:30 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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(a)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 
21 Jul
21 Jul
2:25 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
Hello,
* Guus der Kinderen <guus.der.kinderen(a)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
17 Jul
17 Jul
3:46 p.m.
New subject: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 8:44 AM, eevvoor via Members wrote:
On 7/17/26 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The complaint about messages bouncing from the trademark(a)xmpp.org email address, not
figuring out how to make things easy for end users.
Peter
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.
0
days inactive
18
days old
19 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
eevvoor -
Georg Lukas -
Guus der Kinderen -
Jonas Schäfer -
Kevin Smith -
Peter Saint-Andre -
Ralph Meijer