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 Specifically:   * Is there any record of the Enforcement Agreement being extended,     renewed, or superseded after May 2004?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 &lt;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:     permits     &lt;stpeter(a)stpeter.im <mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote: Software     Jabber and the     house)     do not affirmation     2008. It     more     submit     has. My     licence for     <https://xmpp.org/docs/>     <https://xmpp.org/docs/>     xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/> <https://xmpp.org/     <https://xmpp.org/>     document     <https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber->     <https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/>> Cisco to     public     Peter them to this

On 7/17/26 4:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: 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

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?

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.