Your message dated Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:08:07 +0100
with message-id <20090121150807.ga26...@thorin>
and subject line Re: Bug#391935: [Pkg-xen-devel] Bug#391935: Bug #391935: Re:
The answer from Citrix & Xen.org
has caused the Debian Bug report #391935,
regarding Xen trademark might be problematic
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
391935: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=391935
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: xen-hypervisor-3.0-unstable-1-amd64
Version: 3.0-unstable+hg11561-1
Severity: serious
It seems Xen has a similar trademark policy as the much discussed
Mozilla one. Specifically http://www.xensource.com/xen-tm-faq.html
says:
| 16. If I distribute a changed version of the Xen™ hypervisor, may I
| say that the changed product is the Xen hypervisor?
|
| No. If you have changed an Official Version of the Xen hypervisor in
| any way, then you have created something that is not an Official
| Version of the Xen hypervisor. Because such a code base is entirely
| beyond the oversight and quality control processes of XenSource, you
| may not use the Xen™ trademark in any way in connection with your
| product, and must use a different trademark for your product that will
| not cause confusion with the Xen trademark or any other XenSource
| trademark.
This seems to make it impossible for Debian to patch released xen
packages when security related bugs occur.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (200, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.17.8
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 08:24:54PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > The DFSG-freeness of the code was never in question, it's an issue if
> > > Debian is allowed to use the name "Xen", which we seem to be allowed.
> > > According to DFSG #4, we do not require total freedom for the _name_ of
> > > the program for anyone to whom we distribute the code.
> >
> > Great. So this bug can be closed?
>
> I've written about trademarks before, so let me repeat myself in
> general terms:
>
> I think it is harmful to make waves about trademarks unless an
> upstream comes to us and starts complaining and making objectionable
> demands. If they do not do this then (a) there is no real problem
> because we can always change the name of the package later rather than
> sooner; (b) custom and practice will make it harder for them to
> convince people that enforcing the trademark is this way is reasonable
> so they may avoid it, if they care about public opinion; and (c)
> trademark law provides some useful protection for people who have been
> doing things for ages.
I guess we got distracted here, I forgot to say I fully agree with every bit of
this paragraph.
It seems everybody agrees this bug can be closed, so I'm closing it.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
--- End Message ---
