Hi *DPL*, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >> First off, I'm going to completely ignore the FAQ as the FAQ and the >> license both specifies that the FAQ does not have any legal validity. > Repeating frequently asked questions that have already been answered > isn't terribly useful. The problem is that the FAQ itself says that it *has* no legal value, so we can simply ignore it when checking the license. >> As a final note, did anyone from Debian who usually examines licences >> actually examine this one? > Yes. Could the person responsible for checking the license please come out and explain why the concerns several people have raised are not a problem for the distribution of the sun java package? I mean, I'd love if we would be able to distribute Sun's Java, but not under these circumstances. And, BTW, I'm not at all impressed by your way of dealing with concerns of other DDs. Marc -- BOFH #199: the curls in your keyboard cord are losing electricity.
Attachment:
pgpd_4Li2m8QV.pgp
Description: PGP signature