I've confirmed it with several sources, from several different legal systems:
> The rule is not concerned with the duration of interests. A lease for 999 years does not violate the rule; nor does an estate in fee simple, which may last for ever. The rule is satisfied if an interest must 'vest' within the per- petuity period, even though the interest may last beyond it. - http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/1969/19...
> Although a lease may be given for an unlimited term or even in perpetuity, the reversion is clearly not obnoxious to the rule, since it is a vested interest. - in LEASES AND THE RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES, https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1... (there are many concepts and words I don't understand)
> It’s not related to the rule against perpetutities at all. The rule deals with interests in proprerty which are floating around in a trust, waiting to be vested in someone. They can only float around unvested like this if the terms of the trust require that the must vest in someone within the perpetutity period. - https://davidallengreen.com/2023/03/happily-ever-after-disne...
I was particularly happy about a comment in that last link: "When I was a law student I think I understood the rule against perpetuitities for about an hour – luckily that coincided with my exams."
