Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Henning Makholm <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Scripsit Brian Thomas Sniffen <email@example.com>
>> Johan Walles <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> >> In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't
>> >> even enough for non-free.
>> > Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why
>> > this would be so?
>> Because Debian would have signed it,
> There is nothing in the phrase "a Debian-specific" licence that
> implies that anything has been signed by Debian (whatever that means).
Um. While true, that has the wrong causality.
That Debian has a license only because it has somehow signed something
*does* imply that it's a Debian-specific license.
> An unilateral declaration saying "I hereby allow my program Foomatic
> to be distributed in source and binary from by all Debian mirrors" is
> a Debian-specific license. It is perfectly good for non-free even if
> it is light-years from contrib or mein.
That would make me very nervous, as a mirror operator. But OK.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com