[Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#391935: Bug #391935: Re: The answer from Citrix & Xen.org

Ben Finney ben+debian at benfinney.id.au
Thu Oct 9 02:33:22 UTC 2008


> Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:23:27 -0700
> From: Simon Crosby <Simon.Crosby at citrix.com>
> Subject: RE: About the Xen trademark policy
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Josselin Mouette [mailto:joss at debian.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:31 AM
> >
> >       * Are we allowed to distribute commercially our modified 
> >       versions using the Xen name?
> 
> Commercial products that are sold to customers can use the Xen name 
> if they commit to the compatibility goals of the Xen project (ie we 
> use the name solely to ensure that any VM created on any Xen 
> implementation will run on any other Xen implementation).

What does “commit to the compatibility goals” mean here? Is some 
positive agreement required from the redistributor? That doesn't seem 
to be compatible with the DFSG.

> >       * Are our users allowed to redistribute, commercially or 
> >       not, our modified versions, using the Xen name?
> 
> Any free/community use can do whatever it wants, quite literally.  
> Any commercial distribution that wishes to call itself Xen must be 
> compatible with other Xen branded commercial offerings, otherwise 
> the commercial distribution is not Xen.   This is determined by the 
> FIT test.

If “compatible with …” can be “determined by the FIT test” without the 
prospective redistributor ever needing to contact another particular 
party, this would seem to me to satisfy the DFSG.

If, on the other hand, such compatibility requires some kind of 
interaction with a particular party (e.g. to get the FIT test, 
register for compatibility, confirm the test, or otherwise) then this 
is a “phone home” restriction on redistribution.

A useful test is the “dissident” test: can someone who wishes to 
remain anonymous manage to determine whether their commercial 
redistribution is permitted?

Another useful test is the “desert island” test: can someone who is 
isolated from any arbitrary portion of the larger world, and has 
*only* the work in question (the Xen code base), nevertheless modify 
and redistribute the work commercially to others in their circle, 
knowing that they are complying with the applicable licenses?

I guess in both those instances, the redistributor could simply rename 
the work to be on the safe side. So long as this option remains 
available I guess the combination is DFSG-free.

> In the latter case, where an arbitrary, possibly incompatible 
> variant of the code base is commercially distributed then it clearly 
> isn't Xen, however it may still use the (factually correct) term 
> "Xen based" or "Xen derived" or similar.

So long as this can be automatically determined by someone who wishes 
to redistribute, without needing to contact any particular party or 
breach anonymity.

> I certainly hope that we meet your needs.  Let me emphasize that we 
> view satisfying the needs of the Debian community as a key goal here 
> - we have utmost respect for the Debian team's deep suspicion of 
> trademarks in general

This is an encouraging sentiment, I'm glad this progress is happening.

The only remaining questions seems to be regarding the exact nature 
and procedure of what it means to satisfy the compatibility test, as 
illustrated above.

-- 
 \      “Holy priceless collection of Etruscan snoods, Batman!” —Robin |
  `\                                                                   |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney <ben at benfinney.id.au>
-------------- 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/20081009/b2809e38/attachment.pgp 


More information about the Pkg-xen-devel mailing list