On Thu, 18 May 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:09:30PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > First off, I'm going to completely ignore the FAQ as the FAQ and the > > license both specifies that the FAQ does not have any legal validity. > > Repeating frequently asked questions that have already been answered > isn't terribly useful. Unfortunatly, in this case the FAQ claims that the license says something which the license doesn't actually say. The licence specifies that you're indemnifying Sun for problems in Debian, or problems that result from the interaction or use of Debian with the covered code. Obvioiusly, without using Debian, it would not be possible for someone to use the JDK with Debian. Thus, the clause applies (the FAQ's holding to the contrary notwithstanding) even when the problem is actually an issue or assumption present in Sun's code. This is why ignoring the FAQ is almost always the only conservative method of reading the license. Don Armstrong -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature