[Pkg-xen-devel] Re: Xen is affected by the trademark desease

[Bastian Blank]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:58:10AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> In the case of firefox, we're not distributing code identical to something
> that's been made available upstream under the name "firefox", we are
> patching the code with patches that have not been approved by upstream.  If
> we were distributing a package that directly corresponded to upstream code
> (even to an arbitrary CVS tag/revision), I would argue that we wouldn't
> *need* a trademark license from MoFo to distribute it under that name.

We currently patch the buildsystem, some helper modules, to support
more than one installed version, and the default config.

> If we're patching the xen hypervisor, then yes, we're again distributing
> something that is a derived work of xen rather than xen itself, so there's
> legitimate cause for concern that this is a trademark infringement.

The hypervisor themself is unchanged but the tools are not. So I think
we can at least have the hypervisor with this name.

> If the maintainers or ftpmasters are not comfortable that package names are
> safe from claims of trademark infringement by upstreams, then I think we
> should bring the question to SPI's counsel.

I relayed the question to RedHat as they may also get problems with it.

Bastian

-- 
The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
		-- Scotty
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20061006/112496a2/attachment.pgp