Xen users - Sep 2007 - Does it legal to analysize XEN source code and write a book about it ?

Hi all:
 Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have wrote a book
about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has been purchased by
Citrix<http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>,
so does it legal to publish that book???


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen, perhaps you 
shouldn''t have written a book about it, at least not in English.

On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering about the 
issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix) to 
purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by thousands 
of open source developers, and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource) 
who basically combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers 
and their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to sell 
the technology as if they owned it?   When Xen was doing their Xen 
Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express separation, I knew this 
XenSource was going to be bought.   While it''s perfectly legal for 
XenSource to provide open source service...selling support packages(to 
amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the bundling of support with an 
"enterprise" edition is pushing the boundaries of GPL.  At least
that''s
my understanding of the GPL.  Doesn''t anyone here smell something?  
Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source.  That 
alone is fishy at best.  Also, I had this question:  even though 
Microsoft had a deal with XenSource to bundle windows paravirtualization 
drivers with Xen, shouldn''t we pay Microsoft for the drivers instead of
paying XenSource for their Xen "Windows" Edition?

Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and 
Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.  VMware 
workstation 6 will also be using paravirtualization techniques.  VMware 
ESX was criticized for using Linux as the backend...but the point is: 
Vmware wrote very single line of their own kernel that runs on top of 
linux kernel including device emulation, and windows drivers even.  Xen 
cannot say the same.  For one thing:  all their devices are emulated by 
qemu.  That''s why they can''t do 3D yet like VMware and
parallels.

Enough rambling.  It''s too bad the open source community has turned
into
this way:  giving a limited basic version and upselling an Enterprise 
version and continue to ask for open source developer to code their 
stuff for free(MySQL comes to mind)  There is a reason why CentOS was 
forked from RHEL and why OpenSuSE was a fork of SLES.  I predict that 
there will be a fork of openXen from the last checkpoint where Xen was 
bought.  To me personally, it just doesn''t make any sense that
XenSource
is capitalizing on the work of thousands of engineers from INTEL, 
AMD...shouldn''t the developers who contributed to be paid individually 
as well?

So, in conclusion, Jian, I think you should be free of legal issues to 
write a book about the source code or at least the code before it was 
bought.(I think the freedom of speech alone justifies it), btw, the 
first line was a joke, don''t be offended.



jian zhang wrote:
> Hi all:
>  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have wrote a 
> book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has been purchased by 
> Citrix <http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>, so does
it
> legal to publish that book???
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:09 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen, perhaps you
> shouldn''t have written a book about it, at least not in English.
Why not?
> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering about the 
> issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix) to 
> purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by thousands 
> of open source developers, and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource) 
> who basically combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers 
> and their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to sell 
> the technology as if they owned it?   When Xen was doing their Xen 
Off course it is.
> Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express separation, I knew this 
> XenSource was going to be bought.   While it''s perfectly legal for
> XenSource to provide open source service...selling support packages(to 
> amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the bundling of support with an 
> "enterprise" edition is pushing the boundaries of GPL.  At least
that''s
> my understanding of the GPL.  Doesn''t anyone here smell something?
No, I think your understanding is wrong. How would an open source
company make money without doing something like that?
> Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source.  That 
> alone is fishy at best.  Also, I had this question:  even though 
Nothing fishy with it at all.
> Microsoft had a deal with XenSource to bundle windows paravirtualization 
> drivers with Xen, shouldn''t we pay Microsoft for the drivers
instead of
> paying XenSource for their Xen "Windows" Edition?
I''m sure MS wouldn''t mind if you pay them as well. But my
guess is that
MS only provided technical documents (under NDA) and XENSource wrote the
drivers. That''s why they can''t be open sourced. And again,
this is
another way for an open source company to make money.
> 
> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and 
> Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.  VMware 
> workstation 6 will also be using paravirtualization techniques.  VMware 
> ESX was criticized for using Linux as the backend...but the point is: 
> Vmware wrote very single line of their own kernel that runs on top of 
> linux kernel including device emulation, and windows drivers even.  Xen 
> cannot say the same.  For one thing:  all their devices are emulated by 
> qemu.  That''s why they can''t do 3D yet like VMware and
parallels.
XENSource is not selling the code. It''s GPL''d, meaning you are
not
allowed to sell it. I''m guessing that XENSource also packaging admin
utilities which is not open source, and support, hence they charge money
for it.
> 
> Enough rambling.  It''s too bad the open source community has
turned into
> this way:  giving a limited basic version and upselling an Enterprise 
> version and continue to ask for open source developer to code their 
> stuff for free(MySQL comes to mind)  There is a reason why CentOS was 
> forked from RHEL and why OpenSuSE was a fork of SLES.  I predict that 
Haha... You crack me up. openSUSE is a fork of SLE? Since when? Both
openSUSE and SLE is freely available. It''s only if you want an
automatic
way to install updates, and get support that you have to pay.
> there will be a fork of openXen from the last checkpoint where Xen was 
> bought.  To me personally, it just doesn''t make any sense that
XenSource
> is capitalizing on the work of thousands of engineers from INTEL, 
> AMD...shouldn''t the developers who contributed to be paid
individually
> as well?
Buying XENSource did not (and can not) un-GPL the code.
> 
> So, in conclusion, Jian, I think you should be free of legal issues to 
> write a book about the source code or at least the code before it was 
> bought.(I think the freedom of speech alone justifies it), btw, the 
> first line was a joke, don''t be offended.
Ah! I didn''t actually read your email all the way down before I hit
reply. So you can forget about my first question.
> 
> 
> jian zhang wrote:
> > Hi all:
> >  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have wrote a 
> > book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has been purchased by
> > Citrix <http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>, so
does it
> > legal to publish that book???
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-users mailing list
> > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Magnus:

You repeatedly say that "how does open source company make money without 
doing it".  Let me ask you this question, how does Ubuntu make money 
giving Ubuntu Linux away?  How does PostgreSQL make money giving 
postgreSQL away.  Yes, they sell support contracts just like XenSource 
does, which I highly support the model.  What I don''t think is right is
when Xen Source releases "Express editions" with capabilities 
castrated.  Last I checked, 4GB of memory limit, and 4 VM limit. (as a 
developer, sometimes I need close to 8-10VMs running all at once, so I 
use VMware now) Do you see PostgreSQL do that?  do you see Ubuntu do that?

Well, you can say that well MySQL does it(you can''t even touch their 
latest 5.1 releases or cluster capabilities without paying for the 
Enterprise edition), SuSE does it(no SLES is not free, it''s a 60 day 
eval), Redhat did it(CentOS is binarily the same with updates for free 
too), Microsoft SQL Server Express did it (not open source, so not a 
good example).  The issue is the virtue or lack thereof of dual 
licensing , forcefully segregating markets into "home users" vs 
"enterprise users" on open source GPL license.  You said ,

XENSource is not selling the code. It''s GPL''d, meaning you are
not
allowed to sell it. I''m guessing that XENSource also packaging admin
utilities which is not open source, and support, hence they charge money
for it.

Of course, everyone doing dual license says they are not selling code, 
they are selling service and support, but what if the user did not wish 
to get service and support, only the code underneath?   Then everyone 
doing dual license says, "well we are selling the admin utilities, 
updates which aren''t open sourced".  First of all updates
aren''t that
much work, if there is a critical patch that affects all users, the 
patch should be pushed to all users regardless.  As to admin utilities, 
how many LOC does that require compared to the Xen based code? A 
pittance.  Most admin utilities are scripts for goodness sakes.  And 
don''t forget, all Xen Branded distributions are nothing but a Linux 
distribution.

The question remains that tons of developers coded for Xen(I can name a 
few from INTEL and AMD especially) and their work is being cashed by a 
corporation XenSource(500Million), and the features they worked on(which 
didn''t have the arbitrary VM limits, memory limits) are not made 
available to the public under the official Xen Branded distribution.   
So your response, " Buying XENSource did not (and can not) un-GPL the 
code. " does not answer the question.  If the issue of dual licensing 
applies when you "sell" the code, shouldn''t open source
developers get
paid also when they code the code that gets used by both the "home 
users" and "enterprise users"?

If Microsoft thinks open source is the virus to the software industry,  
I think dual licensing for GPL is the virus to open source industry.  
Just something to think about.  Meanwhile, I will stick to VMware.  The 
reason being: if I am paying someone for something, that someone must 
wrote the code themselves,not piggy backed from the open source community.

No response is required of this post.





Magnus Boman wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:09 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
>   
>> Well, my point is this: if you have "analysize"d Xen, perhaps
you
>> shouldn''t have written a book about it, at least not in
English.
>>     
>
> Why not?
>
>   
>> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering about
the
>> issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix) to 
>> purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by thousands 
>> of open source developers, and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource)
>> who basically combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers
>> and their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to
sell
>> the technology as if they owned it?   When Xen was doing their Xen 
>>     
>
> Off course it is.
>
>   
>> Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express separation, I knew this 
>> XenSource was going to be bought.   While it''s perfectly legal
for
>> XenSource to provide open source service...selling support packages(to 
>> amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the bundling of support with an 
>> "enterprise" edition is pushing the boundaries of GPL.  At
least that''s
>> my understanding of the GPL.  Doesn''t anyone here smell
something?
>>     
>
> No, I think your understanding is wrong. How would an open source
> company make money without doing something like that?
>
>   
>> Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source.  That
>> alone is fishy at best.  Also, I had this question:  even though 
>>     
>
> Nothing fishy with it at all.
>
>   
>> Microsoft had a deal with XenSource to bundle windows
paravirtualization
>> drivers with Xen, shouldn''t we pay Microsoft for the drivers
instead of
>> paying XenSource for their Xen "Windows" Edition?
>>     
>
> I''m sure MS wouldn''t mind if you pay them as well. But my
guess is that
> MS only provided technical documents (under NDA) and XENSource wrote the
> drivers. That''s why they can''t be open sourced. And
again, this is
> another way for an open source company to make money.
>
>   
>> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and 
>> Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.  VMware
>> workstation 6 will also be using paravirtualization techniques.  VMware
>> ESX was criticized for using Linux as the backend...but the point is: 
>> Vmware wrote very single line of their own kernel that runs on top of 
>> linux kernel including device emulation, and windows drivers even.  Xen
>> cannot say the same.  For one thing:  all their devices are emulated by
>> qemu.  That''s why they can''t do 3D yet like VMware
and parallels.
>>     
>
> XENSource is not selling the code. It''s GPL''d, meaning
you are not
> allowed to sell it. I''m guessing that XENSource also packaging
admin
> utilities which is not open source, and support, hence they charge money
> for it.
>
>   
>> Enough rambling.  It''s too bad the open source community has
turned into
>> this way:  giving a limited basic version and upselling an Enterprise 
>> version and continue to ask for open source developer to code their 
>> stuff for free(MySQL comes to mind)  There is a reason why CentOS was 
>> forked from RHEL and why OpenSuSE was a fork of SLES.  I predict that 
>>     
>
> Haha... You crack me up. openSUSE is a fork of SLE? Since when? Both
> openSUSE and SLE is freely available. It''s only if you want an
automatic
> way to install updates, and get support that you have to pay.
>
>   
>> there will be a fork of openXen from the last checkpoint where Xen was 
>> bought.  To me personally, it just doesn''t make any sense that
XenSource
>> is capitalizing on the work of thousands of engineers from INTEL, 
>> AMD...shouldn''t the developers who contributed to be paid
individually
>> as well?
>>     
>
> Buying XENSource did not (and can not) un-GPL the code.
>
>   
>> So, in conclusion, Jian, I think you should be free of legal issues to 
>> write a book about the source code or at least the code before it was 
>> bought.(I think the freedom of speech alone justifies it), btw, the 
>> first line was a joke, don''t be offended.
>>     
>
> Ah! I didn''t actually read your email all the way down before I
hit
> reply. So you can forget about my first question.
>
>   
>> jian zhang wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi all:
>>>  Previously we have analysize Xen source code, and we have wrote a 
>>> book about the code. BUT now, I noticed that xen has been purchased
by
>>> Citrix <http://www.cnetnews.com.cn/list-0-0-16406-0-1.htm>,
so does it
>>> legal to publish that book???
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-users mailing list
>>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-users mailing list
>> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> Hello,
> I just think that the
> money I give will partialy go back to the community...
>
>   
Exactly my point, Mehdi, it is no longer going back to the community.  
It''s going to a corporation not too different from Vmware, but the code
was, dare I say, 85% written by the open source developers who didn''t 
get paid.
>> Meanwhile, I will stick to VMware.  The
>> reason being: if I am paying someone for something, that someone must
>> wrote the code themselves,not piggy backed from the open source
community.
>>     
>
> I just think different : if I am paying someone for software, I rather
> that what I paid will help to develop a GPL version. I just think that the
> money I give will partialy go back to the community...
>
>
> Mehdi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> Hello,
>
>   
>> Exactly my point, Mehdi, it is no longer going back to the community.
>> It''s going to a corporation not too different from Vmware, but
the code
>> was, dare I say, 85% written by the open source developers who
didn''t
>> get paid.
>>     
>
> Yes but you still pay 15% open-source work from Xen-source :)
> With vwmare it would be .... 0% ?
>   
Oh boy....No, I would be paying 100% the price for 15% of the work done 
by Xen-source vs paying 100% price for 100% of the work done by VMware.  
In other words, 0% of the price I pay to XenSource goes to 85% of the 
work done by open source community. 

On the issues of pricing,
500 bux for Server Edition,  vs 200 bux for VMware workstation 6, or 
free VMware Server vs 79 dollars parallels vs Free Microsoft Virtual Server.
2500 bux for Enterprise, vs  VMware infrastucture $3750 plus the 
upgrades options...so Xen is say 50% cheaper.

I see the only market Xen has is Amazon.com EC2 kind of company or 
Godaddy.com or Virtual Hosting companies, which by the way, if they were 
to use Xen, they would be buying the support anyways.  The way I look at 
it, since Xen just did the dual licensing, I will never touch it again.  
If they went true open source style, I would use it, but would probably 
end up facing problems thus paying for their support packages.  It''s 
really Xen''s loss.  On the other hand, 2500 bux for their 15% work? 
....

>
> Mehdi
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:09 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering about the 
> issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix) to 
> purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by thousands 
> of open source developers, and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource) 
> who basically combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers 
> and their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to sell 
> the technology as if they owned it? 
First, Xen is free software. While it is licensed under the GNU GPL
License,
it is free software. Please stop calling it open source. "Open Source"
is a 
misnomer. For a program to be free, its source is already considered to
be 
"Open", but that is just one requisite. To also be free, you must be
able to
copy it, share it, package it and sell it yourself.

Some programs are open source but not free, many of them Microsoft
programs.
They have a developer network where members get a new set of CD''s every
quarter
with new goodies on them that have source code included. This is open
source, 
not free. You can''t share those programs or their source code, if you
improve the 
code the only people you can share your imrpovements with is Microsoft.

Xen (GPL) is free software. Xen has (Keir would have to pull the patch
graphs since 
day1 to list them) _MANY_ substantial contributors who own the copyright
to their 
code. Just like the Linux kernel. In order for that to change, you would
have to get 
every single major contributor in agreement, I don''t think that would
ever happen.

Unique (a bit) to Xen is the fact that so many major contributors are
paid by their
employers (such as AMD, IBM, Novell, and others). Depending on the
agreement between
the authors and their respective companies, those companies may also
have a stake in 
copyright.
> When Xen was doing their Xen Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express
separation,
> I knew this XenSource was going to be bought.
XenSource is shifting their development focus to a completely different
kind of market
for virtualization, did you read any of the press and subsequent buzz
after the sale?

Xen (Free) is seeing most adaptation on servers. Xen (ent) is going
directly for desktop use and other uses in industry besides the typical
PV dom-u farm.

I''m sure that XenSource will keep an eye on the direction Xen is going,
however they
_must_ be completely different projects or they violate their own
license unless they
give you source code with XenEnt.
> While it''s perfectly legal for XenSource to provide open source
service...
> selling support packages(to amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the
bundling of support with an
> "enterprise" edition is pushing the boundaries of GPL.  
No its not. XenEnt is not GPL. It does not contain GPL code. It is not a
community 
developed product. How are they pushing anything? Xen (GPL) and Xen
(ENT) are two
completely different code bases from my understanding, or you would get
source code
with XenEnt. XenSource does _NOT_ own the entire code base to Xen (GPL)
and thus can
not dual license it.
> At least that''s 
> my understanding of the GPL.  Doesn''t anyone here smell something?
Yeah, but I suspect its coming from my armpit. Please don''t dig up dirt
outside to 
throw on a perfectly clean floor inside. 
> Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source.  That 
> alone is fishy at best.
They are under no obligation to release those drivers GPL. I think they
were talking about it once, not sure what happened. If I''m correct,
those drivers would need a bit of hacking to get into place anyway.
> Also, I had this question:  even though 
> Microsoft had a deal with XenSource to bundle windows paravirtualization 
> drivers with Xen, shouldn''t we pay Microsoft for the drivers
instead of
> paying XenSource for their Xen "Windows" Edition?
No, You should pay the people who wrote them. Actually, you shouldn''t
pay anyone. Don''t use Microsoft products and the problem goes away :)
> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and 
> Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.
So did MySQL. Please, I don''t know how to make it more clear, Xen (GPL)
and XenEnt are different things totally. It seems like you have a
misconception that XenEnt is a polished
up version of the GPL version of Xen, it is not, it could not be, or
XenSource violates its own license and has been for years. I _SINCERELY_
doubt that :)
> Enough rambling.  It''s too bad the open source community has
turned into
> this way:  giving a limited basic version and upselling an Enterprise 
> version and continue to ask for open source developer to code their 
> stuff for free(MySQL comes to mind)
XenEnt is nothing like MySQL. Its a completely different code base and
project. MySQL dual licenses their code and does not accept things
beyond trivial patches so that they retain full copyright. 

XenEnt is NOT free , its NOT open source. It just so happens that
XenSource manages both code bases. One is a bag of apples, one is a bag
of oranges. 
>   There is a reason why CentOS was 
> forked from RHEL and why OpenSuSE was a fork of SLES.  I predict that 
> there will be a fork of openXen from the last checkpoint where Xen was 
> bought.  
I highly, highly doubt that. 

Its one thing to ask questions when you don''t understand things. Its
another to propagate misinformation based on known misunderstandings (as
you indicated, you aren''t quite clear on it).

It might be wise to refrain from such things in the future, or your only
starting a fire 
for the benefit of being the one to say ''fire''.

Kindly,
--Tim


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Hello,

> Meanwhile, I will stick to VMware.  The
> reason being: if I am paying someone for something, that someone must
> wrote the code themselves,not piggy backed from the open source community.
I just think different : if I am paying someone for software, I rather
that what I paid will help to develop a GPL version. I just think that the
money I give will partialy go back to the community...


Mehdi



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Hello,
>>
> Exactly my point, Mehdi, it is no longer going back to the community.
> It''s going to a corporation not too different from Vmware, but the
code
> was, dare I say, 85% written by the open source developers who
didn''t
> get paid.
Yes but you still pay 15% open-source work from Xen-source :)
With vwmare it would be .... 0% ?


Mehdi



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tim:

No its not. XenEnt is not GPL. It does not contain GPL code. It is not a
community 
developed product. How are they pushing anything? Xen (GPL) and Xen
(ENT) are two
completely different code bases from my understanding

Thanks for the lengthy reply.  For a long time, I was informed that the 
reason Xen Enterprise was not free was because of the extra 
administration utilities they developed, which wasn''t free,
wasn''t open
source.  Even when you go to www.xensource.com, under Xen Enterprise 
page, you clearly see that Xen Hypervisor is there, which I assumed that 
it''s the open sourced Xen.   Now you say that Xen Enterprise is a 
completely closed, rewritten code base apart from Xen, then, I can only 
assume that it does not have any performance resemblance to the open 
source Xen or share any components or design.

Call me critical or skeptical, but the idea of a company running dual 
source trees of similiar products, one open source, one completely 
closed source,  is ...how should I say it, I wouldn''t believe that the 
closed sourced one didn''t have anything to do with the open source one.
Yes, no matter how you try to convince me, I don''t believe it.  In my 
mind, it''s even worse than dual licensing.   Let''s assume what
you said
is true, then XenSource isn''t even a open source company, they just
used
the Xen open source project to draw people''s interest into their closed
sourced one with strikingly similar name.(how do you tell from just the 
name that Xen and Xen Enterprise are two completely different source trees?)

Oh well, too many trickeries involved, no matter how you slice and dice 
it, apple or orange.  Too bad, looks like I''d be stuck with VMware for
a
while.  BTW, I have no affiliations with VMware whatsoever.

Thanks for the input.




Tim Post wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 21:09 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
>   
>> On the issue of Xen being purchased by Citrix, I was wondering about
the
>> issues of legality.  Is it even legal for a corporation(Citrix) to 
>> purchase an open source package, of which was contributed by thousands 
>> of open source developers, and is it legal for a corporation(XenSource)
>> who basically combines a lot of open source package(qemu device drivers
>> and their paravirtualization based on the linux kernel) into one to
sell
>> the technology as if they owned it? 
>>     
>
> First, Xen is free software. While it is licensed under the GNU GPL
> License,
> it is free software. Please stop calling it open source. "Open
Source"
> is a 
> misnomer. For a program to be free, its source is already considered to
> be 
> "Open", but that is just one requisite. To also be free, you must
be
> able to
> copy it, share it, package it and sell it yourself.
>
> Some programs are open source but not free, many of them Microsoft
> programs.
> They have a developer network where members get a new set of CD''s
every
> quarter
> with new goodies on them that have source code included. This is open
> source, 
> not free. You can''t share those programs or their source code, if
you
> improve the 
> code the only people you can share your imrpovements with is Microsoft.
>
> Xen (GPL) is free software. Xen has (Keir would have to pull the patch
> graphs since 
> day1 to list them) _MANY_ substantial contributors who own the copyright
> to their 
> code. Just like the Linux kernel. In order for that to change, you would
> have to get 
> every single major contributor in agreement, I don''t think that
would
> ever happen.
>
> Unique (a bit) to Xen is the fact that so many major contributors are
> paid by their
> employers (such as AMD, IBM, Novell, and others). Depending on the
> agreement between
> the authors and their respective companies, those companies may also
> have a stake in 
> copyright.
>
>   
>> When Xen was doing their Xen Enterprise, Xen Windows, and Xen Express
separation,
>> I knew this XenSource was going to be bought.
>>     
>
> XenSource is shifting their development focus to a completely different
> kind of market
> for virtualization, did you read any of the press and subsequent buzz
> after the sale?
>
> Xen (Free) is seeing most adaptation on servers. Xen (ent) is going
> directly for desktop use and other uses in industry besides the typical
> PV dom-u farm.
>
> I''m sure that XenSource will keep an eye on the direction Xen is
going,
> however they
> _must_ be completely different projects or they violate their own
> license unless they
> give you source code with XenEnt.
>
>   
>> While it''s perfectly legal for XenSource to provide open
source service...
>> selling support packages(to amazon EC2 for example), but forcing the
bundling of support with an
>> "enterprise" edition is pushing the boundaries of GPL.  
>>     
>
> No its not. XenEnt is not GPL. It does not contain GPL code. It is not a
> community 
> developed product. How are they pushing anything? Xen (GPL) and Xen
> (ENT) are two
> completely different code bases from my understanding, or you would get
> source code
> with XenEnt. XenSource does _NOT_ own the entire code base to Xen (GPL)
> and thus can
> not dual license it.
>
>   
>> At least that''s 
>> my understanding of the GPL.  Doesn''t anyone here smell
something?
>>     
>
> Yeah, but I suspect its coming from my armpit. Please don''t dig up
dirt
> outside to 
> throw on a perfectly clean floor inside. 
>
>   
>> Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source.  That
>> alone is fishy at best.
>>     
>
> They are under no obligation to release those drivers GPL. I think they
> were talking about it once, not sure what happened. If I''m
correct,
> those drivers would need a bit of hacking to get into place anyway.
>
>   
>> Also, I had this question:  even though 
>> Microsoft had a deal with XenSource to bundle windows
paravirtualization
>> drivers with Xen, shouldn''t we pay Microsoft for the drivers
instead of
>> paying XenSource for their Xen "Windows" Edition?
>>     
>
> No, You should pay the people who wrote them. Actually, you
shouldn''t
> pay anyone. Don''t use Microsoft products and the problem goes away
:)
>
>   
>> Comparing this behavior to VMware or Parallels, at least VMware and 
>> Parallels wrote their code they are selling.  Every line of it.
>>     
>
> So did MySQL. Please, I don''t know how to make it more clear, Xen
(GPL)
> and XenEnt are different things totally. It seems like you have a
> misconception that XenEnt is a polished
> up version of the GPL version of Xen, it is not, it could not be, or
> XenSource violates its own license and has been for years. I _SINCERELY_
> doubt that :)
>
>   
>> Enough rambling.  It''s too bad the open source community has
turned into
>> this way:  giving a limited basic version and upselling an Enterprise 
>> version and continue to ask for open source developer to code their 
>> stuff for free(MySQL comes to mind)
>>     
>
> XenEnt is nothing like MySQL. Its a completely different code base and
> project. MySQL dual licenses their code and does not accept things
> beyond trivial patches so that they retain full copyright. 
>
> XenEnt is NOT free , its NOT open source. It just so happens that
> XenSource manages both code bases. One is a bag of apples, one is a bag
> of oranges. 
>
>   
>>   There is a reason why CentOS was 
>> forked from RHEL and why OpenSuSE was a fork of SLES.  I predict that 
>> there will be a fork of openXen from the last checkpoint where Xen was 
>> bought.  
>>     
>
> I highly, highly doubt that. 
>
> Its one thing to ask questions when you don''t understand things.
Its
> another to propagate misinformation based on known misunderstandings (as
> you indicated, you aren''t quite clear on it).
>
> It might be wise to refrain from such things in the future, or your only
> starting a fire 
> for the benefit of being the one to say ''fire''.
>
> Kindly,
> --Tim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
>
>   

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 02:14 -0600, Tao Shen wrote:
> Tim:
> Thanks for the lengthy reply.  For a long time, I was informed that the 
> reason Xen Enterprise was not free was because of the extra 
> administration utilities they developed, which wasn''t free,
wasn''t open
> source.  Even when you go to www.xensource.com, under Xen Enterprise 
> page, you clearly see that Xen Hypervisor is there, which I assumed that 
> it''s the open sourced Xen.   Now you say that Xen Enterprise is a 
> completely closed, rewritten code base apart from Xen, then, I can only 
> assume that it does not have any performance resemblance to the open 
> source Xen or share any components or design.
Any commercial application can use the hypervisor. The source to it is
freely available. I don''t use Xen-ent, so I have no idea if its the
same. What I do know is, if it is the same, the source code is freely
available.

XenEnt is its own completely separate entity. XenEnt is a completely
closed code base but not a re-write of Xen. XenEnt utilizes Xen, which
XenSource has made freely available.

If you wanted, you could write your own "XenEnt" and sell it just like
they do. In fact a number of people have done that. 

Xensource gives you the same exact freedoms they have with Xen(GPL).
There is no problem. If they want to make tools and programs to help
control and use the technology for profit, that is up to them. Nobody is
holding a gun to your head and saying "USE THIS OR ELSE", Xen is in no
way crippled, anything they can do with XenEnt I can do with Xen(GPL).
Why? I took the time to study Xen and dissect how it works, so I''m able
to do these things.

It is no secret that Xen (GPL) has an audience of very experienced
system integrators and engineers. We like Xen the way that it is because
it can be dropped into anything easily. It installs completely from
source in about an hour with very little effort.

I can take a computer, install Xen and within 40 minutes sell 5 - 10 VPS
servers to the public. Or, I can virtualize classroom computers,
appliances, whatever I want. 

Xen is a very advanced hypervisor, patched kernel and basic set of
tools. How much more do you want them to make completely free?

If you don''t like XenEnt, don''t buy it. The existence of
XenEnt does
not, in any way negate the significance of Xen (GPL) to the free
software ecosystem. Please stop implying that it does.
> Call me critical or skeptical, but the idea of a company running dual 
> source trees of similiar products, one open source, one completely 
> closed source,  is ...how should I say it, I wouldn''t believe that
the
> closed sourced one didn''t have anything to do with the open source
one.
You really need to look at all of the components that go into a
Virtualization platform aside from just virtualization technology. You
have a hypervisor, kernel and tools. 

Hypervisor = GPL
Kernel = GPL (Unless using Windows)
Tools = Up to you
> Yes, no matter how you try to convince me, I don''t believe it.  In
my
> mind, it''s even worse than dual licensing.   Let''s assume
what you said
> is true, then XenSource isn''t even a open source company, they
just used
> the Xen open source project to draw people''s interest into their
closed
> sourced one with strikingly similar name.(how do you tell from just the 
> name that Xen and Xen Enterprise are two completely different source
trees?)
Because, XenEnt falls into the ''tools'' category. 2/3 of what
you need to
have "XenEnt" are already freely available. Should they open all three
and go out of business and not make any money at all from their
endeavor?

XenEnt is a COMPLETELY different project than Xen. It takes Xen into
many different markets and directions. Xen (GPL) lets me do what they
do. What''s the issue?
> Oh well, too many trickeries involved, no matter how you slice and dice 
> it, apple or orange.  Too bad, looks like I''d be stuck with VMware
for a
> while.  BTW, I have no affiliations with VMware whatsoever.
I really fail to see how there is any trickery. What I see is someone
who might not realize that they don''t understand the accusations that
they''re making.

--Tim


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

To address the subject line first.
IANAL but...
1) If you ask a mailing list for legal advice instead of a lawyer,
you''re an idiot.
2) A lawyer''s default answer to this form of question is "No,
don''t do that."
3) Penalties are higher for knowingly violating copyrights and patents.
4) It''s better to ask a lawyer questions like "We made a legal
mistake,
how do we get out of it with the least pain?" or "We stumbled across
an
abuse of in the legal process, how do we go about stopping this abuse?"

On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:21:56PM -0600, Tao Shen
wrote:
> Mehdi AMINI wrote:
> >Hello,
> >I just think that the
> >money I give will partialy go back to the community...
> >
> >  
> Exactly my point, Mehdi, it is no longer going back to the community.  
> It''s going to a corporation not too different from Vmware, but the
code
> was, dare I say, 85% written by the open source developers who
didn''t
> get paid.
To have a leg to stand on you would need to
1) Show that the open source contributing developers did not release the
rights to their contributions to Xensource.
AND
2) Show that Xensource has failed to provide the source of those contributions
and their modifications to those contributions to their customers.
(Meaning if it went into Xen Express, it''s available to anyone that
downloaded
Xen Express that requests the source, if it went into Xen Enterprise,
it''s
available to anyone that paid for Xen Enterprise and requests the source).

If the contributing developers released the rights to their contributions
to Xensource, you can pound sand.
If you did not partake of Xensource''s products, you can pound sand.

From a pragmatic viewpoint it''s lower overhead and less hassle for a 
company that provides value add to a GPLed source base to provide that 
source to the public at large and to quickly release those modifications 
to the GPLed source base that was released to the public.
It took a while for the commercial Linux distros to clue in on this
matter.  It has taken quite a bit of groundwork to bring this clue to
Intel and AMD/ATI and VMWare.  It will probably take time to 
introduce this clue to Citrix.

You have provided no evidence that Xensource/Citrix is not honoring
GPLv2 to the letter.
You have provided no evidence that you have expended the resources
to have Xensource/Citrix honor GPLv2''s intent.
(IE buy a license to their product, request the source, make it available
to the public).
It''s unclear if you have discussed with Xensource/Citrix that they
appear to not be honoring the intent of GPLv2 and that has caused them
to lose your business and what Xensource/Citrix''s response was.

Morally the whole situation is questionable.
Aesthetically the situation sucks.
Pragmatically, have you considered writing letters to the editor as
a hobby?
-- 
Chris Dukes
< elfick> willg: you can''t use dell to beat people, it
wouldn''t stand up
to the strain... much like attacking a tank with a wiffle bat

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:17:01PM +0800, Tim Post
wrote:
> 
> No its not. XenEnt is not GPL. It does not contain GPL code. It is not a
> community 
> developed product. How are they pushing anything? Xen (GPL) and Xen
> (ENT) are two
> completely different code bases from my understanding, or you would get
> source code
> with XenEnt. XenSource does _NOT_ own the entire code base to Xen (GPL)
> and thus can
> not dual license it.
That''s a partially misleading statement given the current
xenserver whitepaper and a quick perusal of the XenExpress downloads.

XenExpress appears to be a free proprietary product on a
free open source platform.  That open source platform is bundled
with the product.  This model is similar to the one used with
VMWare ESX.
Source is available for the free opensource platform for XenEnt,
although there were some issues (since resolved) obtaining the 
source when XenEnt 4 was released.
I apologize for my comment that Xensource was not following
the intent of GPLv2 as it was based off of my experience 
when there were some website and distribution issues.

But it''s a bit of a mouthful to say "XenEnt is a closed source
product that is bundled with a free open source platform.
XenSource provides the required source for that free open source
platform."
> 
> > Windows paravirtualization drivers are released in closed source. 
That
> > alone is fishy at best.
> 
> They are under no obligation to release those drivers GPL. I think they
> were talking about it once, not sure what happened. If I''m
correct,
> those drivers would need a bit of hacking to get into place anyway.
The current trend appears more beneficial for a company
to provide those drivers and specs openly.  However, such
behavior now could currently increase support costs for
Xensource/Citrix.
> 
> So did MySQL. Please, I don''t know how to make it more clear, Xen
(GPL)
> and XenEnt are different things totally. It seems like you have a
> misconception that XenEnt is a polished
> up version of the GPL version of Xen, it is not, it could not be, or
> XenSource violates its own license and has been for years. I _SINCERELY_
> doubt that :)
However, XenEnt does ship as a polished bundle of the closed source parts
with the free opensource parts.  This situation can be confusing as 
the purpose of the closed source parts is to reduce the need to look
at the open source parts.
It does not help that the versioning scheme has lead the less curious
public to believe that the product is bundled with non-publicly released
versions of the free open source platform.
I have no magic cure for that as XenSource must sell to management
that expects version bloat... perhaps have the next version number be
of the format YYYYMM :-).

-- 
Chris Dukes
< elfick> willg: you can''t use dell to beat people, it
wouldn''t stand up
to the strain... much like attacking a tank with a wiffle bat

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tao Shen wrote:
> XENSource is not selling the code. It''s GPL''d, meaning
you are not
> allowed to sell it.
This is what you appear to not understand -- you /can/ in fact sell GPL 
software.  You can even sell other peoples'' GPL software. 
There''s
nothing wrong with it at all.  All the Linux distributions you mention 
like RedHat and OpenSuSe contain the Linux kernel at least which is 
GPL''d and they sell it quite easily with no complaints from anyone 
because its legal.

Of course, on top of this is the issue of dual-licensing.  Any code you 
own the Copyright to you have every right to sell someone under a 
different license as well as distributing it under the GPL (which MySQL 
AB does with the MySQL server software).

You really need to understand the GPL better.
-- 
Michael T. Babcock
http://mikebabcock.ca


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tao Shen wrote:
> Magnus:
>
> You repeatedly say that "how does open source company make money 
> without doing it".  Let me ask you this question, how does Ubuntu make
> money giving Ubuntu Linux away?  How does PostgreSQL make money giving 
> postgreSQL away.  Yes, they sell support contracts just like XenSource 
> does, which I highly support the model.  What I don''t think is
right
> is when Xen Source releases "Express editions" with capabilities 
> castrated.  Last I checked, 4GB of memory limit, and 4 VM limit. (as a 
> developer, sometimes I need close to 8-10VMs running all at once, so I 
> use VMware now) Do you see PostgreSQL do that?  do you see Ubuntu do 
> that?
I''m making a living at it, partly with Xen right now, because
it''s
cheaper for the company to pay my salary than to buy VMWare licenses or 
lots of extra hardware.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 02:14:35AM -0600, Tao Shen
wrote:
> No its not. XenEnt is not GPL. It does not contain GPL code. It is not a
> community 
> developed product. How are they pushing anything? Xen (GPL) and Xen
> (ENT) are two
> completely different code bases from my understanding
Xen Enterprise includes a derived version of the Xen hypervisor and a
proprietary control software.

The hypervisor is GPL -- even XenSource have to ship the sources -- and
is included in the source cds of Xen Server. It includes some binary
incompatible changes, so you can''t just plug their hypervisor and the
open sourcen control tools together.

Bastian

-- 
Killing is stupid; useless!
		-- McCoy, "A Private Little War", stardate 4211.8

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tim Post wrote:
> First, Xen is free software. While it is licensed under the GNU GPL
> License,
> it is free software. Please stop calling it open source. "Open
Source"
> is a 
> misnomer. For a program to be free, its source is already considered to
> be 
> "Open", but that is just one requisite. To also be free, you must
be
> able to
> copy it, share it, package it and sell it yourself.
> 
> Some programs are open source but not free, many of them Microsoft
> programs.
> They have a developer network where members get a new set of CD''s
every
> quarter
> with new goodies on them that have source code included. This is open
> source, 
> not free. You can''t share those programs or their source code, if
you
> improve the 
> code the only people you can share your imrpovements with is Microsoft.
Tim, while I agree with everything else you posted, your definition of 
"open source" doesn''t match my understanding. Open source
doesn''t just
mean that you can look at the source code.

That MS example you cited wouldn''t be open source, as open source also 
requires that you are able to "copy it, share it, package it and sell it 
yourself".

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

The MS license you mention (there are others) is what they call "shared 
source". As far as I''m aware, no MS license has been approved by
the OSI
yet.

-- 
Cheers
Anton


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Tim Post wrote:
> "Open" doesn''t always mean "free". Xen is free
software, its license
> guarantees that you will always have the same freedoms with the program
> and its source code that XenSource has.
Sure. I''m aware of the Free Software definition :)

I was just pointing out that restricting the ability of others to modify 
and redistribute (as in your example) stops that software being either 
"Open Source" or "Free Software" or both.

Anyway this is getting offtopic, back to Xen stuff...

-- 
Cheers
Anton


_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

Magnus Boman <captain.magnus@gmail.com> writes:
> XENSource is not selling the code. It''s GPL''d, meaning
you are not
> allowed to sell it. I''m guessing that XENSource also packaging
admin
> utilities which is not open source, and support, hence they charge money
> for it.
Sure it is and it has every right to do so. You can take any GPLed
source at sell it for a million dollars.

What you can''t sell is the copyright and licensing rights unless you
are the author.

Whoever buys the GPLed source for a million dollars has all the rights
given by the GPL and the seller has all the obligations described in
the GPL (like giving source). That means that once ONE person payed he
can upload it to the internet for everyone free of charge. And then
who would ever be so stupid as to pay a million? Only that usualy
limits the price of GPLed software to small to nothing.
> Buying XENSource did not (and can not) un-GPL the code.
And that is is beauty of it.

MfG
        Goswin

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users

On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 09:40 +1200, AD. wrote:
> Tim Post wrote:
> > First, Xen is free software. While it is licensed under the GNU GPL
> > License,
> > it is free software. Please stop calling it open source. "Open
Source"
> > is a 
> > misnomer. For a program to be free, its source is already considered
to
> > be 
> > "Open", but that is just one requisite. To also be free, you
must be
> > able to
> > copy it, share it, package it and sell it yourself.
> > 
> > Some programs are open source but not free, many of them Microsoft
> > programs.
> > They have a developer network where members get a new set of
CD''s every
> > quarter
> > with new goodies on them that have source code included. This is open
> > source, 
> > not free. You can''t share those programs or their source
code, if you
> > improve the 
> > code the only people you can share your imrpovements with is
Microsoft.
> 
> Tim, while I agree with everything else you posted, your definition of 
> "open source" doesn''t match my understanding. Open
source doesn''t just
> mean that you can look at the source code.
> 
> That MS example you cited wouldn''t be open source, as open source
also
> requires that you are able to "copy it, share it, package it and sell
it
> yourself".
> 
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> 
> The MS license you mention (there are others) is what they call
"shared
> source". As far as I''m aware, no MS license has been approved
by the OSI
> yet.
For software to be free, its source code must be available and released
under a license that does not restrict how you (as the user) use the
source code or the program. If a program is licensed under the GNU GPL2
(or later), it is considered to be free software. The availability of
source code is a prerequisite for this, but only one prerequisite.

The GPL ensures that anyone distributing a program _must_ give you the
same freedoms that they enjoy with the program and its source code. I
could take BSD licensed code, modify it then send you binaries and
refuse to give you the source code. As long as my program advertises
that it is BSD code, I''m fine. However, BSD code is ''open
source''. So is
Minix and others.

"Open" doesn''t always mean "free". Xen is free
software, its license
guarantees that you will always have the same freedoms with the program
and its source code that XenSource has.

Whenever you call a GPL Licensed program "open source", you fail to
mention the most important aspects of the license and by extension the
program. Then, people forget them. That is unfortunate and really needs
to stop :) With something like Xen, its really important to not discount
those freedoms. 

I was around in the free software ecosystem when GPL2 came out, not a
lot of people remember all of the problems that the license cured. If we
forget those problems, they will return.

Don''t forget, the headers in most GPL programs start with :

"This program is free software;"

Kindly,
--Tim



_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users