XSF Discussion - 2026-06-18

Cynthia: not sure I understand. Is it that we want the game to show a status in a XMPP client, or that you take the status from Discord itself?

(Since it has a lot more info to show than just name, details and such)

> Cynthia: not sure I understand. Is it that we want the game to show a status in a XMPP client, or that you take the status from Discord itself? This section would be benefitical for XMPP clients that pretend to be a Discord client to get rich presence info from games ✏ ↺

> This section would be benefitical for XMPP clients that pretend to be a Discord client to get rich presence info from games Why do they need to pretend to be Discord? ↺

Some games report their status to Discord, they don't report their status to non-Discord, so in order to receive their status updates you'd need to masquerade as Discord

>> This section would be benefitical for XMPP clients that pretend to be a Discord client to get rich presence info from games > Why do they need to pretend to be Discord? Because most games and software only care about Discord RPC and nothing else, so you need to emulate the Discord client's RPC server ↺

Not ideal, but might save it from becoming a hypothetical XEP (like User Gaming ended up being)

Fairly sure that User Gaming did see adoption at the time, FWIW, although whether any of that persists I wouldn’t like to say.

> Fairly sure that User Gaming did see adoption at the time, FWIW, although whether any of that persists I wouldn’t like to say. I'm assuming as a WoW mod? ↺

1. Welcome

Who do we have?

o/

o/ from the peanut gallery. would like to raise a point for agendum 3

Mickaël, flow, Arne?

yes

here

All right, we have quorum

2. Agenda

https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-06-18

(if you can load it, because our wiki is suffering)

jonas’, noted

I'd suggest the mailing list archive, but that may be equally slow?

It loaded fine for me

Any other items?

jonas’ would you like to suggest sometihing _related_ to item 3, or apart from it?

related to.

3. Jabber™ Sublicensing Program

i also have something for that

probably similar to jonas’,

No other item from me

I am not sure about current demand. The idea of having the program for me was _some_ argument with Cisco in the case that they'd complain about our use of the term Jabber. Obviously the community as a whole started using Jabber™ less and less, and so it kind of fizzled out.

I do welcome the feedback and input. Depending on the feedback, it may be good to take this to the mailing list, so that the broader membership can pitch in, and we can keep these Board meetings from becoming community meetings.

Like Peter said, it is likely that nobody currently at Cisco is aware of the program's existence.

I just want to raise the administrative point that it's currently not possible to file trademark applications because of technical issues reaching the trademark@ email address. It is unclear how long that has been going on. That may have negatively biased the "no recent applications" thingy :).

further discussion I'll indeed take to the mailing list

jonas’ lol

I would not _ask_ to keep it, for sure, because a question phrased like that is open for a _no_ answer.

I'm raising the point here because I think board should not make a final decision while it's not possible to even file applications.

ralphm_, so collectives like joinjabber should prepare for a future without license option from XSF?

is that an official position of the board?

(and I only found this out an hour ago or so, so I wanted to mention it here inline)

if so we can prepare for alternatives

yes likely. Not sure how many current projects may have to consider alternative name. ejabberd possibly if current license holder’s have to change name.

jonas’ thanks - that's certainly not ideal - then again, I do expect that people that are interested would eventually have reached us somehow.

No, I mean that I consider the program to exist and remain valid

jonas, do you happen to know if mails to trademark@ bounce, i.e., is the sender aware that the message was not delivered?

flow, I do happen to know and yes they do bounce.

I guess it is more « legacy ». Note sure anyone would launch a new product / project today with Jabber in the name as it may feel risky

so it is _expected_ that someone taking it seriously would in fact try to seek out the XSF. but it's also conceivable that this made people "risk it" and there are unlicensed uses in the world which have not been enforced by anyone.

msavoritias: that is a challenge for _every_ current approved application, I think - one that we certainly should think about. That said, I don't think that joinjabber currently is such an approved application? https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/approved-applications/

(which may or may not be a problem in and of itself, mind)

The XSF is not aware of current violators. If we were we'd been obligated to address that.

Guus, it is not i became aware of the program may shut down today bceause of the move to EU and became concerned for a couple of collectives i know

because cisco would be a hassle or renaming 🙂

renaming/changing mentions

I do want to decouple this from the move to the EU - those do not require to go hand-in-hand (but it _was_ a trigger to consider this)

Also, where I wrote ™, I meant Ⓡ.

Could someone summarize the downsides of transfering the trandemark holder over to a potential new entity?

Us stopping the programme doesn't automatically mean that everyone needs to rename, of course.

Guus, do we know that? or does "not automatically" mean here that we aren't sure that it means that?

flow: basically: we'd need to involve Cisco, and no-one there knows we exist.

right

'not automatically' means here: I am far from sure that this is the case (but have not definately found out).

flow: the relevant mail by psa is https://mail.jabber.org/hyperkitty/list/members@xmpp.org/message/XR4MEQMIYKQ4AY3PPBSC35QJIZFJ7VMC/

Guus, okay, that's as I expected (but the wording was ambiguous IMO)

you're right, thanks

Us having given out licenses makes those licenses perpetual, as long as the licensee is abiding by the terms. The XSF has the right to terminate it in that case. So if there was a "stop" to the program, we'd just not have _new_ license.

Sorry had connection issues through LTE here 👋

I'm going to drop out of the meeting now. Thanks for considering my input o/.

If the program stops, it would be nice to send a letter to existing licensee to state that. It may serve as a proof of good faith.

If we decide to wind down the XSF and replace it with something else, then we could reach-out to Cisco and there if it goes somewhere. If it's not, then we have at least tried.

In other words, I don't think the trademark situation is a blocker for forming the new entity

I'm not sure if we should do that reaching out - that's bound to become a heavy task involving lawyers.

flow, I don't think it is a blocker - but on the other hand, I would like to address it as a stand-alone thing, too. It currently feels like it's in limbo. We _have_ it, but we're not using it much.

Once they know you exist, lawyers can drag you into a process you can hardly control ...

the trademark situation might be a blocker / impediment for winding down the old entity.

I'm relatively certain that we cannot transfer the Agreements to a successor organization unilaterally.

probably not unilaterally, right

Ge0rG, which only is a problem if we actually choose to wind that down - but the point illustrates that it adds complexity. If we want to keep the programme, that's fine, but if there's no point - why not remove the complexity?

> flow, I don't think it is a blocker - but on the other hand, I would like to address it as a stand-alone thing, too. It currently feels like it's in limbo. We _have_ it, but we're not using it much. from the sidelines jabber is also used in quite a few places (outside of products). if that went back to cisco that would bring a lot of people "in limbo" ↺

its fine to say we are over jabber ofc. a rename would be interesting (or just changing the word i guess)

a bit offtopic, but i do think there should be a good name for the instant messaging aspects of XMPP. Jabber would've filled that role somewhat well

msavoritias: I don't think all the usage that are _not_ current approved applications are very relevant for this discussion (unless they want to sign up in the near future). As long as they're not approved applications, they're outside of the trademark.

This is not saying that we will stop using the word 'jabber'. This _only_ concerns us maintaining the Trademark licensing programme.

right, but if the trademark goes back to cisco, this "usage" can no longer be sure of "good faith" enforcement.

There is an unavoidable risk to projects that use 'jabber', but there is not much we can do about it. If nobody volunteers to continue the US XSF entity, that it will be shut down. If Cisco doesn't go into an aggreement with the new entity, then this is outside of our control.

we are already afraid of reaching out to them now because of all the lawyers 🙃

msavoritias, it is not the case that the Agreements somehow make other uses safe because we have them. The only things we do are: 1. Receive applications, approve them (or not), and list them here: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/approved-applications/ 2. When these licenses are violated, we need to act. 3. When we are aware of other non-licensed uses, we need to act.

From the peanut gallery (sorry), my memory of the license agreement was that it was that grant from Cisco to the XSF that allowed some projects to use it without registering. Do I misremember?

Feel free to not respond if I’ve misremembered.

Kev: right, I tried to capture that above

Seems that there is plenty of appetite to discuss this further. I would like to suggest that we take this to the mailing list.

Instead of going to Jabber, Inc. (now Cisco), they could apply with us.

(also: I have a hard deadline today)

fair

same

Ok

4. AOB

Any other business?

(not from me)

Same no OB

5. Date of Next 2 July, same bat time

6. Close

wfm

Thanks all!

Thanks !

Thanks everyone sorry for being late this time

Thanks! Sorry to cut short the discussion - I think it was very useful - please take this to the mailing list so that we can take stock of all opinions, concerns and other feedback!

thanks everyone

Is it okay to use another registered trademark in a XEP?

XSF's IPR policy does not mention this

Meeting minutes here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Board-Meeting-2026-06-18#Minutes (kindly confirm that they're OK)

I'm out for now - please ping me in private if something is off with the minutes

> I'm relatively certain that we cannot transfer the Agreements to a successor organization unilaterally. what agreements? the expired ones between JSF and Cisco ? lol for the 50th time does the JSF/XSF have any agreements with Cisco that haven't expired that anyone can link? ✏ ↺

> right, but if the trademark goes back to cisco, this "usage" can no longer be sure of "good faith" enforcement. there's not really a "goes back to" they already have it etc. ↺

Yes, this is correct. We sublicense. Cisco remains the trademark holder

> Is it okay to use another registered trademark in a XEP? So long as you use it properly in accordance with the law of course. Otherwise we couldn't use any English words in a xep ↺

This is also clear from the documents linked here: https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/background/

which one ? they all expired over 2 decades ago right ?

Other registered trademarks mentioned in a XEP (assuming that the mention itself is within the allowed uses) will have to ensure that implementations and documentation and such can be done freely. It should be rejected if that's not the case.

https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_Enforcement_Agreement.pdf effective may 2, 2003 , terminated 12 months later ?

https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf is between JINC and JSF and since board agrees a single party can't unilaterally modify the parties involved, and neither party exists anymore, there's either another document or no more agreement right ?

I don't think renaming an entity changes agreements with that entity

Not that I think the agreements matter too much of course

they do in terms of whether XSF has the right to sublicense the trademark right ?

I don't think JINC simply renamed either

wait what even says sublicensing is allowed in these docs? https://xmpp.org/docs/Trademark_License_Agreement.pdf specifically says it's not allowed right ?

moparisthebest, my understanding is that the document you are linking to is indeed old and expired, and that there is a newer agreement with Cisco which was put in place around the time of the acquisition

could we get that linked anywhere instead ?

https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/trademark-license-agreement/ - I found this by going to xmpp.org -> About -> The XSF -> Trademark Licensing Agreement

no pdf / dates / signatures though, still better than nothing, I guess this under the PDFs should be deleted and link there ? > These governing agreements continue to be in force, with the responsibilities of Jabber, Inc. having been assumed by Cisco Systems, Inc. upon its acquisition of Jabber, Inc. in 2008.

> https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/jabber-trademark/trademark-license-agreement/ - I found this by going to xmpp.org -> About -> The XSF -> Trademark Licensing Agreement wait MattJ the first paragraph confused me , that the license between XSF and people it's sublicensing to right ? so back to absolutely nothing public that says XSF can sublicense ↺