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

[Ben Finney]

On 07-Oct-2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 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.

Thanks very much for your efforts here.

> My understanding is the following:

> 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.

I think the effective distinction is that any modification is allowed, 
redistribution of the modified work is allowed by anyone, and whether 
or not the result can be redistributed under the same name can be 
simply, automatically determined by the redistributor without 
corresponding with any particular party.

So long as that's true, I conclude the restriction isn't onerous 
enough to violate the DFSG.

> We can call the distributed software Xen as long as it is compatible 
> with upstream regarding to VM images support.

That much was clear from your earlier work. I was mainly interested to 
know that this freedom extends to all recipients of Debian, regardless 
of commercial/non-commercial redistribution.

> The compatibility test is not yet available, but we could easily 
> setup a test suite to be run manually when in doubt.

If it's automated, freely accessible to any recipient of the work, and 
gives an unambiguous yes/no answer to whether the redistribution 
requires a rename without consulting any other party, that seems to me 
to be sufficient to satisfy redistribution.

> 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.

Presuming you mean “would be considered a bug in Debian”, I agree. I'm 
interested here only in the terms of redistribution.

> 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.

So long as this can be avoided while still satisfying the requirements 
for the work in Debian to be free for all recipients, I agree that a 
rename should be avoided.

-- 
 \     “Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.” |
  `\                                                 —Henry L. Mencken |
_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/bf2334d3/attachment.pgp