XenSource has recently posted guidelines for use of their trademarked
materials. These guidelines have an impact on what may be used from
the open source project''s source control system. We have the
appropriate changes in our source release, and have a patch available
upon request.
See http://www.xensource.com/company/legal.html for more information.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Thomas Virtual Iron Software
bthomas@virtualiron.com Tower 1, Floor 2
978-849-1214 900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ben Thomas wrote: [Tue Oct 03 2006, 02:29:05PM EDT]> See http://www.xensource.com/company/legal.html for more information.Is this any different from the mozilla terms that brought about iceweasel? Aron _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:24:13PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:> Ben Thomas wrote: [Tue Oct 03 2006, 02:29:05PM EDT] > > See http://www.xensource.com/company/legal.html for more information. > Is this any different from the mozilla terms that brought about > iceweasel?A little bit. They allow security fixes. But it means that Debian have to rename Xen. Bastian -- The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play. -- Kirk, "Shore Leave", stardate 3025.8 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
In my opinion this is similar to the issue that Debian had with Mozilla browser
trademark discussion (http://lwn.net/Articles/118268/). Our philosophy on using
open source software is very much in alignment with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). I dont want to
bore everyone on this mailing list with Virtual Iron guidelines for open source
software usage, but the most important item to us is free redistribution,
without any hindrance. We take this approach with all of the open source
software that we create and release to the community, pure GPL, with no
hindrance of any sort.
I do agree you with you that there is a naming issue.
-Alex V.
Alex Vasilevsky Virtual Iron Software
alex@virtualiron.com Tower 1, Floor 2
978-849-1211 900 Chelmsford Street
Lowell, MA 01851
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> In my opinion this is similar to the issue that Debian had with Mozilla > browser > trademark discussion(http://lwn.net/Articles/118268/). Our philosophy on > using open source software is very much in alignment with the Debian Free > Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). I > don''t > want to bore everyone on this mailing list with Virtual Iron guidelines > for open > source software usage, but the most important item to us is free > redistribution, > without any hindrance. We take this approach with all of the open source > software > that we create and release to the community, pure GPL, with no hindrance > of any sort.Xen is distributed under the GPL. At any point you can do anything you want with the code (use it, modify it, encrypt it, freely redistribute it, put it on a CD or a website or a t-shirt, etc, etc, etc).> I do agree you with you that there is a naming issue.Exactly. There''s a well-defined notion of what is "Xen" - the software built openly by this community. As long as that''s the only thing that''s _called_ "Xen", we''ll be fine. cheers, S. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Steven Hand wrote:> >> In my opinion this is similar to the issue that Debian had with >> Mozilla browser >> trademark discussion(http://lwn.net/Articles/118268/). Our philosophy on >> using open source software is very much in alignment with the Debian Free >> Software Guidelines >> (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). I don''t >> want to bore everyone on this mailing list with Virtual Iron >> guidelines for open >> source software usage, but the most important item to us is free >> redistribution, >> without any hindrance. We take this approach with all of the open >> source software >> that we create and release to the community, pure GPL, with no >> hindrance of any sort. > > Xen is distributed under the GPL. At any point you can do anything you > want with the > code (use it, modify it, encrypt it, freely redistribute it, put it on a > CD or a website or > a t-shirt, etc, etc, etc). > >> I do agree you with you that there is a naming issue. > > Exactly. > > There''s a well-defined notion of what is "Xen" - the software built > openly by this > community. > > As long as that''s the only thing that''s _called_ "Xen", we''ll be fine.If only everything was as simple as using the term Linux. Given internal (and external) concerns with our upcoming inclusion of a hypervisor-based on a popular open source project, we''re considering using a neutral reference: ''CNH'' - Common Neutral Hypervisor I hope this is an acceptable term for others with similar issues. Brian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:34:03 -0400 >From: Brian Stein <bstein@redhat.com> >In-Reply-To: <074101c6e803$210bdf90$0202a8c0@Violet>>Steven Hand wrote: > >>> In my opinion this is similar to the issue that Debian had withMozilla browser>>> trademark discussion(http://lwn.net/Articles/118268/). Our philosophy on >>> using open source software is very much in alignment with the Debian Free >>> Software Guidelines(http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). I don''t>>> want to bore everyone on this mailing list with Virtual Iron >>> guidelines for open source software usage, but the most important item to >>> us is free redistribution, >>> without any hindrance. We take this approach with all of the opensource software>>> that we create and release to the community, pure GPL, with no >>> hindrance of any sort.So I can take your source, change it randomly, and sell it as Virtual Infrastructure 3?>> Xen is distributed under the GPL. At any point you can do anything you >> want with the code (use it, modify it, encrypt it, freelyredistribute it, put it on a>> CD or a website or a t-shirt, etc, etc, etc).>>> I do agree you with you that there is a naming issue. >> Exactly.>> There''s a well-defined notion of what is "Xen" - the software built >> openly by this community.>> As long as that''s the only thing that''s _called_ "Xen", we''ll be fine.>If only everything was as simple as using the term Linux.>Given internal (and external) concerns with our upcoming inclusion of a >hypervisor-based on a popular open source project, we''re considering >using a neutral reference: ''CNH'' - Common Neutral Hypervisor >I hope this is an acceptable term for others with similar issues.This is from the same Red Hat that has the most restrictive of trademark policies in the open source world with Fedora Core and RHEL? Please, climb off your soap box. As I read it the XenSource policy is a reasonable attempt to be sure that what is delivered to customers claiming to be Xen really is Xen, and not a random bag of bits. I guess you support a the same idea for RHEL and Fedora Core, otherwise you wouldn''t protect them, right? It also seems to be a decent policy for allowing other vendors to use the Xen brand. MySQL has done exactly the same thing (http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/logos.html) and ITIR Red Hat was perfectly happy to include MySQL in the distro. Has Red Hat ever let any other vendor use its brands? Or is you next release called Common Neutral Linux? Kurt Xen Hosting http://rimuhosting.com/ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Kurt Skurtveit wrote:>> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:34:03 -0400 >> From: Brian Stein <bstein@redhat.com> >> In-Reply-To: <074101c6e803$210bdf90$0202a8c0@Violet> > >> Steven Hand wrote: >> >>>> In my opinion this is similar to the issue that Debian had with > Mozilla browser >>>> trademark discussion(http://lwn.net/Articles/118268/). Our >>>> philosophy on >>>> using open source software is very much in alignment with the Debian >>>> Free >>>> Software Guidelines > (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines). I don''t >>>> want to bore everyone on this mailing list with Virtual Iron >>>> guidelines for open source software usage, but the most important >>>> item to >>>> us is free redistribution, >>>> without any hindrance. We take this approach with all of the open > source software >>>> that we create and release to the community, pure GPL, with no >>>> hindrance of any sort. > > So I can take your source, change it randomly, and sell it as Virtual > Infrastructure 3? > >>> Xen is distributed under the GPL. At any point you can do anything you >>> want with the code (use it, modify it, encrypt it, freely > redistribute it, put it on a >>> CD or a website or a t-shirt, etc, etc, etc). > >>>> I do agree you with you that there is a naming issue. >>> Exactly. > >>> There''s a well-defined notion of what is "Xen" - the software built >>> openly by this community. > >>> As long as that''s the only thing that''s _called_ "Xen", we''ll be fine. > >> If only everything was as simple as using the term Linux. > >> Given internal (and external) concerns with our upcoming inclusion of a >> hypervisor-based on a popular open source project, we''re considering >> using a neutral reference: ''CNH'' - Common Neutral Hypervisor >> I hope this is an acceptable term for others with similar issues. > > This is from the same Red Hat that has the most restrictive of > trademark policies in the open source world with Fedora Core and RHEL? > Please, climb off your soap box. > > As I read it the XenSource policy is a reasonable attempt to be sure > that what is delivered to customers claiming to be Xen really is Xen, > and not a random bag of bits. I guess you support a the same idea for > RHEL and Fedora Core, otherwise you wouldn''t protect them, right? > > It also seems to be a decent policy for allowing other vendors to use > the Xen brand. MySQL has done exactly the same thing > (http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/logos.html) and ITIR Red Hat was > perfectly happy to include MySQL in the distro.In this comparison MySQL is a packaging exercise; the inclusion of a hypervisor and modification to the kernel we package and ship is a bit more work. There is a significant amount of churn of these bits, both forward ported to 2.6.18 and backported to 2.6.9. I''m not debating the merit, or lack there of, around the recent XenSource restrictions around the use of the term Xen. There remains some ambiguity as to Red Hat''s ability (and evidently others) to ship our version of these bits *and* call them Xen. This was intended to inform others in the community what we are actively considering. Brian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:19:15PM +0100, Steven Hand wrote:> >I do agree you with you that there is a naming issue. > Exactly. > There''s a well-defined notion of what is "Xen" - the software built openly > by this > community.No. It does not allow the use of this name for a snapshot from xen-unstable. Bastian -- The man on tops walks a lonely street; the "chain" of command is often a noose. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Kurt Skurtveit wrote:>> Given internal (and external) concerns with our upcoming inclusion of a >> hypervisor-based on a popular open source project, we''re considering >> using a neutral reference: ''CNH'' - Common Neutral Hypervisor >> I hope this is an acceptable term for others with similar issues. > > This is from the same Red Hat that has the most restrictive of > trademark policies in the open source world with Fedora Core and RHEL? > Please, climb off your soap box.It''s not a question of soap box, but a question of "collection" vs "component", as well as a question of practical matters. Components like glibc, the Linux kernel, Xen, and other programs need to be maintained for years in RHEL. Probably way beyond the time where XenSource would still be interested in approving patches for 3.0.3. If XenSource were to lose interest in supporting an old release, that should not mean distributions lose their ability to support users using that release. Personally, I think Debian was right with their "iceweasel" decision. As to the RHEL and Fedora trademarks, there is a reason that all the trademarked bits are nicely separated out into their own RPMs. We intentionally make it easy for people to rename things. There might be something on that in the Fedora lists archives, not sure though... Renaming things may be inconvenient, but not being able to properly support users is outright dangerous. As long as the distributions can agree on a common name for "the hypervisor formerly known as Xen", the renaming shouldn''t be all that bad. -- Who do you trust? The people with all the right answers? Or the people with the right questions? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 02:48:34PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:> Kurt Skurtveit wrote: > > >>Given internal (and external) concerns with our upcoming inclusion of a > >>hypervisor-based on a popular open source project, we''re considering > >>using a neutral reference: ''CNH'' - Common Neutral Hypervisor > >>I hope this is an acceptable term for others with similar issues. > > > >This is from the same Red Hat that has the most restrictive of > >trademark policies in the open source world with Fedora Core and RHEL? > >Please, climb off your soap box. > > It''s not a question of soap box, but a question of "collection" > vs "component", as well as a question of practical matters. > > Components like glibc, the Linux kernel, Xen, and other programs > need to be maintained for years in RHEL. Probably way beyond the > time where XenSource would still be interested in approving patches > for 3.0.3. If XenSource were to lose interest in supporting an > old release, that should not mean distributions lose their ability > to support users using that release.And at the other end of the spectrum, Fedora''s mission is to track the very leading edge of open source development. For the kernel this means that the daily rawhide releases are based off pre-releases of Linus'' newest kernel and forward-ported xen-unstable. We typically only lock onto a formal release of the kernel/xen shortly before the final test release. The trademark rules lead to the ridiculous situaton whereby we can''t call the intermediate rawhide releases xen (because they''re based on xen-unstable), but once FC6 locks onto official 3.0.3 we could then call it Xen[1]. So we are left with two bad options - either stop using xen-unstable for rawhide releases (which would mean much less testing exposure for Xen unstable tree leading to lower quality releases), or change the name in Fedora which will cause great confusion for users & developers alike and fragment the Xen community :-( The value of testing xen-unstable in our rawhide releases is faaaar to great to stop - anyone can look at the archives to see the kind of serious bugs we''ve uncovered through exposing xen-unstable to Fedora testers, so it looks like a rename is the lesser of two evils :-(> Personally, I think Debian was right with their "iceweasel" decision.I agreee - its just not a scalable approach to require every single distributor push all their patches back through a single point to get ''approval''. Even today there are countless patches pushed submitted to xen-devel mailing lists which never get so much as a ack/nack for weeks at a time, requiring frequent reminder emails from the submitter. To suggest people need to follow such a process to all patches they distribute is impractical.>From reading the trademark rules / FAQs it appears one of the motivatingfactors for only allowing official releases to be called Xen is an idea that this improves quality / compatability for end users. This is is a rather dubious idea. What improves quality is getting as much testing as possible - throughout development - for example by distributing xen-unstable releases to as many users as possible. Providing a stable HV ABI & application API also improves quality seen by users - current situation is akin to every single kernel release requiring a matched glibc release. Bludgeoning people over trademarks doesn''t improve quality, it merely fractures the development community :-( One of the great strengths of Linux is that there is such an open & free development process, even though Linus has the one ''master'' tree, anyone who wants can maintain custom trees - and the users don''t suffer from compatability problems because everyone understands the value of providing a consistent stable ABI across releases & branches. Regards, Dan. [1] In actuallity it looks like we can''t call FC6 bits Xen anyway, because while the HV is pretty much identical to 3.0.3 we forward port the kernel bits fo 2.6.18. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel