Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:47:52AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 06:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > > On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> > > > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
> > > > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which we
> > > > could be sued and lose a case in relation to this license. Do you?
> > >
> > > While I understand your argument about Sun asking for this, and even
> > > found it serious, please do not argue the judges are human being after
> > > all... Judges aply law, and that what they are meant for.
> >
> > Sure. They are, however, supposed to apply some common sense in doing
> > so, rather than acting like an automaton.
>
> Sun says Java distributors indemnify Sun. Debian does not have to
> distribute Java. Let us suppose - hypothetically - that Debian rashly
> decides to distribute Java.
>
> A supertanker runs aground, discharges a million gallons of crude oil,
[crazy scenario involving Debian laptop with Java applet]
The risk you're describing is crazy, and very unlikely of actually
occurring.
Ignoring that, even if it were to occur, who's to say the people who
would want to sue Sun in your scenario wouldn't want to sue Debian, too,
while the're at it? After all, the laptop _is_ running Debian. I suspect
the fact that there is a java weather applet running isn't even remotely
relevant to such nutcases.
I don't think the chance of "nutcase sueing Sun for Bad Applet" is any
more relevant or likely than the chance of "nutcase sueing Debian for
bad browser". I really don't see how it makes the license problematic.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: