Le mardi 07 octobre 2008 à 10:31 +0200, Josselin Mouette a écrit : > I’ll ask for clarifications about the rest.
And here are the clarifications.
My understanding is the following:
* We can call the distributed software Xen as long as it is
compatible with upstream regarding to VM images support. The
compatibility test is not yet available, but we could easily
setup a test suite to be run manually when in doubt. In all
cases, I’m pretty sure any incompatibility would already be
considered a bug, and full compatibility with upstream is
something that we should definitely advertise.
* If someone wants to make an incompatible version, he will have
to change the name. Personally, I don’t think this restriction
is incompatible with the DFSG, as there are no real restrictions
on modifications. Since we have hands free for patches that are
relevant to us, this is not a Mozilla-like situation.
* If we really want to take the paranoid stanza, I guess it would
be fine to keep the package names and change the descriptions to
make it clear it is “based on Xen”. However I would find it
detrimental for both Debian and upstream.
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
`- our own. Resistance is futile.
--- Begin Message ---Hi Josselin See inline. > -----Original Message----- > From: Josselin Mouette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 2:31 AM > To: Stephen Spector > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: About the Xen trademark policy > > Le vendredi 03 octobre 2008 à 13:02 -0400, Stephen Spector a écrit : > > Thanks for your email and I am glad that Debian is continuing to > > support Xen in your product releases. I see no issue with Debian > > moving forward as you suggest at this time with Xen logo and wording > > usage. We are still working on the FIT test and it is not ready at > > this time for official publication. > > Sorry to bother you again, but actually some people in the project > asked me to clarify the following points: > * Are we allowed to distribute our modified versions using the > Xen > name? (I already understand that the answer is yes.) Yes > * 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). The compatibility goals are enshrined in the "FIT" test which stands for Faithful Implementation Test. The Xen project specifically regards Xen compatibility and uniformity of management APIs as key to the goals of the project (we want fast, free, compatible, ubiquitous implementations of the same technology only insofar as the technology meets the compatibility goals. Customers rely on that as a key requirement for their virtualized infrastructure) > * 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. 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. > * Are our users allowed to redistribute, commercially or not, > versions they have modified further, using the Xen name? Community - yes, anything is allowed. Commercial implementations must support our user base / customer base's key demands for compatibility as defined in the FIT test. > > There are quite a number of our users who propose commercial Debian- > based offers, and we need to ensure that they will not violate your > trademark policy by doing so Absolutely. Please understand that the policy is in place specifically to counter claims (from competitive non open source technologies/companies) that Xen is "fragmented and incompatible and with a weak ISV ecosystem". Our aspiration is for that not to be the case - through unification of the vendors around a simple test of compatibility - the FIT. > > Of course, we are ready to accept some conditions on the range of > allowed modifications, and the FIT test idea looks acceptable to me; we > still consider the software to be free since we can modify it further > by changing the name. 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; in the case of Xen it has turned out that the compatibility requirement is absolutely paramount in users' minds, and so the project sought to align the vendors to achieve compatibility using the TM as the only tool at our disposal. If you folks have any suggestions we'd be very keen to hear them. Thanks and best Simon > > Cheers, > -- > .''`. > : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. > `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to > `- our own. Resistance is futile.
--- End Message ---
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
