On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 11:01 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > Could someone please explain to me why paragraph 2(f) does not pose a > problem? I couldn't find ANY discussion about the license on Debian legal > which surprises me a little bit, but then maybe I just missed the > relevant parts of the license. Anyway, as a non-lawyer I'm surprised > that we seem to accept that we have to "defend and indemnify Sun". Did you read the accompanying FAQ? Question 12 addresses your concern. http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.1.txt Thijs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part