Comments on: Xen Trademark Policy http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/ The weblog of an IT pro specializing in virtualization, storage, and servers Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:15:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39137 slowe Wed, 28 May 2008 18:16:12 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39137 Keith, Thanks for the update. I appreciate it! (And I enjoyed your blog post, too!) Keith,

Thanks for the update. I appreciate it! (And I enjoyed your blog post, too!)

]]> By: Keith Ward http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39126 Keith Ward Wed, 28 May 2008 15:18:47 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39126 Scott, David, I blogged about this yesterday as well: http://virtualizationreview.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=2222 My impression is that Citrix ultimately has complete ownership of the Xen moniker. Yeah, Xen.org is autonomous, but the Web site is owned by Citrix. I'd be willing to bet they could add whatever conditions they wanted (not that they would -- Citrix emphasizes at every opportunity that it doesn't interfere with Xen (not XenServer, of course, or XenApp, XenDesktop, etc.)) That doesn't mean Citrix could not -- just that it chooses not to. Re: the Virtual Iron brouhaha, I asked Simon Crosby about this awhile ago. He said that at one time VI was in violation of the trademark because of changes to the base hypervisor, but has since come into compliance, and is now in good standing with Xen (open source Xen, that is). Scott, David, I blogged about this yesterday as well: http://virtualizationreview.com/blogs/weblog.aspx?blog=2222

My impression is that Citrix ultimately has complete ownership of the Xen moniker. Yeah, Xen.org is autonomous, but the Web site is owned by Citrix. I’d be willing to bet they could add whatever conditions they wanted (not that they would — Citrix emphasizes at every opportunity that it doesn’t interfere with Xen (not XenServer, of course, or XenApp, XenDesktop, etc.)) That doesn’t mean Citrix could not — just that it chooses not to.

Re: the Virtual Iron brouhaha, I asked Simon Crosby about this awhile ago. He said that at one time VI was in violation of the trademark because of changes to the base hypervisor, but has since come into compliance, and is now in good standing with Xen (open source Xen, that is).

]]> By: slowe http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39072 slowe Tue, 27 May 2008 23:53:39 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39072 David, I hadn't heard anything about any problems with Virtual Iron and the Xen marks. I would like to know about the ownership of the Xen trademark. The idea of a commercial entity owning trademark rights to an open source project somehow seems counter-intuitive, but I suppose it's probably just me. David,

I hadn’t heard anything about any problems with Virtual Iron and the Xen marks. I would like to know about the ownership of the Xen trademark. The idea of a commercial entity owning trademark rights to an open source project somehow seems counter-intuitive, but I suppose it’s probably just me.

]]> By: David Marshall http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39067 David Marshall Tue, 27 May 2008 22:59:43 +0000 http://blog.scottlowe.org/2008/05/27/xen-trademark-policy/#comment-39067 Scott, good question. I'm not sure who exactly owns the Xen trademark either. If someone finds out or already knows, please let the rest of us know for sure. I can only assume that XenSource owned it and now Citrix through acquisition. Remember, XenSource had some stipulations on the Xen name as well if I am not mistaken. Wasn't there something about Virtual Iron's use of the Xen name because of developed code or something? Scott, good question. I’m not sure who exactly owns the Xen trademark either. If someone finds out or already knows, please let the rest of us know for sure. I can only assume that XenSource owned it and now Citrix through acquisition. Remember, XenSource had some stipulations on the Xen name as well if I am not mistaken. Wasn’t there something about Virtual Iron’s use of the Xen name because of developed code or something?

]]>