On Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:34 +0000 Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> [For -legal people, the license is attached.]
Thanks.
[...]
> Also, section 4 poses a major issue. If, for any reason, the Linux
> kernel doesn't do something that Java requires, then we are obligated
> to either fix it or inform everyone who has acquired Java from us.
Indeed, it seems we are in chains: whenever Sun decides that we should
do it, we are bound to modifying the Debian System to satisfy their
requirements and/or notifying the world about the issue.
>
> Section 10 is not possible with our infrastructure. The ftp-master
> scripts merely remove the package from the tag database, not the
> archive (at least until there are no dependencies), and not from all
> of our mirrors.
It seems that you're right.
>
> Section 2(b) prohibits allowing people to develop software with Java
> that is to be run on another system.
Yes, a fairly strong restriction, but not something that gets violated
by the Debian Project.
Users of non-free are anyway warned and advised to read licenses in
order to evaluate (on a case-by-case basis) whether they can (and want
to) use a package.
>
> Section 2(c) prohibits us from using the software in conjunction with
> C, C++, Perl, Python, or *any reasonable Turing-complete programming
> language*.
Worse: it seems that it prohibits combining, configuring and
*distributing* the Software to run in conjunction with any similar
compiler.
Hence it seems that the Debian Project is already violating the license,
by distributing all the other DKs (such as GCC, Python, Perl, ...)!
>
> Section 12 requires that this software be in non-US/non-free. It is
> not, which is not only a violation of the license, but a violation of
> United States law.
I'm not sure:
| 12. Export Regulations. All Software and technical data delivered
| under this Agreement are subject to US export control laws and may
| be subject to export or import regulations in other countries.
This seems to be a statement about facts.
It may be that US export control laws don't restrict the export of the
Software: if this is the case, stating that it's subject to export
cotrol laws does not seem to hurt.
Or am I wrong?
| You acknowledge that you have the responsibility to obtain such
| licenses to export, re-export, or import as may be required after
| delivery to you.
Please note the "may be required": if no export license is required,
then I'm fine (even when I acknowledged that I have the responsibility
of obtaining any required export license).
Is that right?
>
> This conflicts with other project policies and exposes Debian/SPI to
> major legal liabilities. I think that this should be removed from the
> archive as soon as possible, preferably before the next mirror pulse.
I agree.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpc43Jd6r52I.pgp
Description: PGP signature