* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and > > > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is > > > three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to > > > examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive > > > contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. Some of this might have been avoided had one or two of the debian-legal regulars been asked to look into it. Changing the license beforehand certainly would have been better than ending up in this situation. > > You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-) > > The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you > mean ____ or ____ when you wrote ____?". The answers to those latter > questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring > it just wastes everyone's time. Unfortunately, neither the FAQ nor emails from Sun are actually legally binding so while this is a nice exercise to help identify places where Sun should change the license to make it more clear it doesn't actually improve the license by itself. I'd like to think that this would have been pointed out by most any debian-legal regular who might have reviewed it. Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature