Re: Jabber Trademark Sublicensing agreement. Was: Re: Re: XSF EU Legal Structure - Help us define evaluation criteria
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>, 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
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
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
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@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@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 >> >
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@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@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 >> >
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@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@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 >> >
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@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@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@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 >> >
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
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
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 7:48 AM, 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.
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.
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.
Why would their change? They were licensed under the old regime and there's no reason for that to change. But IANAL.
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
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.
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members <members@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
On 7/17/26 4:45 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members <members@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. 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 Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 8:48 AM, eevvoor via Members wrote:
On 7/17/26 4:45 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members <members@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.
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 ...
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 15:48, eevvoor via Members <members@xmpp.org> wrote:
On 7/17/26 4:45 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members <members@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
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@xmpp.org> wrote:
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:48, eevvoor via Members <members@xmpp.org> wrote:
On 7/17/26 4:45 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On 17 Jul 2026, at 15:44, eevvoor via Members <members@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
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
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
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
On Tue, Jul 21, 2026, at 7:25 AM, Georg Lukas 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.
Once again, I will reiterate that you can call the network JABBER without any licenses: ### In any reference to JABBER that merely refers to it as an instant messaging and presence technology or XML streaming technology (e.g., in software documentation), the use of the “®” symbol is requested, but not required. It is not necessary to obtain or hold a trademark license to refer to the name of the technology. This type of use is called “descriptive use” under the trademark laws and requires no license. https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/usage-guidelines/ §1.2 ### I wish folks here would read the documentation we created 20+ years ago to explain all of this!! Licenses are required for company names, software names, etc. But we've received only a three license requests over the last 15 years after the initial flood of requests in 2004-2006: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/approved-applications/ Georg, I realize two of those three applications were from you, so this is something you care about. But IMHO we need to look realistically at the costs and benefits of migrating the sublicensing program to the EU along with other XSF assets and commitments. Peter
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
On Fri, Jul 17, 2026, at 8:44 AM, eevvoor via Members 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.
The complaint about messages bouncing from the trademark@xmpp.org email address, not figuring out how to make things easy for end users. Peter
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.)
What do you mean by "was too late for that." ? I don't you about other people but I call my XMPP service as my Chat service, Prosŏdy as my Chat server, Profanity as my Chat client. As soon as people question what I mean by "Chat" I point to `xmpp.org` to introduce interoperability and pretty much leaving "Jabber" where it belongs: history (20 years ago). If you are still thinking about keep on using "Jabber", perhaps ask yourself: Is it really too late to change your marketing story ? ————————————— Trần H. Trung ————————————————— https://trung.fun https://tranphuoc.org ——————————————————————————— PGP: 272B C112 E0C1 CA52 2987 8E06 4C2E 262F 6514 7810 ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————— On 26/07/17 03:48pm, 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
On 7/23/26 08:31, Trần H. Trung via Members wrote:
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.) What do you mean by "was too late for that." ?
I don't you about other people but I call my XMPP service as my Chat service, Prosŏdy as my Chat server, Profanity as my Chat client. As soon as people question what I mean by "Chat" I point to `xmpp.org` to introduce interoperability and pretty much leaving "Jabber" where it belongs: history (20 years ago).
If you are still thinking about keep on using "Jabber", perhaps ask yourself: Is it really too late to change your marketing story ?
+1 to what Trần said. My preferred framing is XMPP is to Chat what SMTP is to Email. Jabber being trademarked and having to ask a large corporation for permission to use it professionally or as a project name is just icky. Not to mention that the name sounds dated to many people and conjures up old memories from the early 2000s.
On 26/07/17 03:48pm, 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
participants (10)
-
eevvoor -
Georg Lukas -
Guus der Kinderen -
JC Brand -
Jonas Schäfer -
Kevin Smith -
Peter Saint-Andre -
Ralph Meijer -
Travis Burtrum -
Trần H. Trung