Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
Please continue to CC Juergen and I, we're not on -legal
>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <stephen@clothcat.demon.co.uk> writes:
Stephen> Read it again. This is clause 3 of the supplemental
Stephen> terms. Clause 3 pertains to distribution of binaries:
This is Sun's supplemental terms for the j2sdk and applies to the
end-users wishing to redistrinute a Java2 run-time environment (read
the mentioned README file if you don't believe me). It is, therefore
an EULA. The Blackdown supplemental terms appear at the bottom on the
licence and explicitly grant redistribution by mirrors and Linux
distributions, so long as the files in the original tarballs remain
unaltered.
[...]
Stephen> It says nothing about whether or not you can sue Debian.
Stephen> It explicitly says that it is Sun which you must
Stephen> indemnify against damages.
Stephen> As I indicated before. If you wish to assert that I am
Stephen> wrong and why I am wrong then I will withdraw my
Stephen> objection.
Proof by counter example. This is from the xfree86 licences:
2.4 GLX Public License
GLX PUBLIC LICENSE (Version 1.0 (2/11/99)) ("License")
3. Redistribution in Executable Form. The notice set forth in
Exhibit A must be conspicuously included in any notice in an
executable version of Subject Software, related documentation or
collateral in which Recipient describes the user's rights relating
to the Subject Software. Recipient may distribute the executable
version of Subject Software under a license of Recipient's choice,
which may contain terms different from this License, provided that
(i) Recipient is in compliance with the terms of this License, and
(ii) the license terms include this Section 3 and Sections 4, 7,
8, 10, 12 and 13 of this License, which terms may not be modified
or superseded by any other terms of such license. If Recipient
distributes the executable version under a different license
Recipient must make it absolutely clear that any terms which
differ from this License are offered by Recipient alone, not by
SGI. Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify SGI for any liability
incurred by SGI as a result of any such terms Recipient offers.
Specifically, the last sentence requires Debian to indemnify SGI
against changes to their code if they in any way alter the licence
terms. Before Branden jumps down my throat, I'm not suggesting that
he or anyone has done so, but historic behaviour is no guide to
future performance.
A second example, this from blender (currently in non-free):
7. User warning and indemnification
WARNING: use of the Software and use of any works that are (partially)
created with the Software (the "Works") may cause physical or
psychological reactions from You or from third parties, which may result
in damages, injuries, losses and/or other negative consequences. You
acknowledge that NaN can not be held liable for any such damages,
injuries, losses and/or other negative consequences. You acknowledge
that it is your obligation to investigate, prevent and/or minimize such
reactions prior to having third parties use the Works.
You shall indemnify and hold harmless NaN from and against all actions,
claims, demands, proceedings, losses, damages, costs, charges and
expenses, including but not limited to legal fees and expenses, arising
out of or in connection with (i) the use of the Software by You and (ii)
the use of any Works created with the Software by You or any third
parties.
My point is that clause is standard legalese and is already carried by
other packages within Debian.
--
Stephen
"And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!"
Reply to: