On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > Unfortunately many many people out there are not very interested in > > dissecting licenses and in telling "real" and "fake" free software > > apart. Even less in examining potential issues with non-free packages. > Debian would become (viewed as, at least, as) one more project to not > take care about what "Free Software" is, despite the strong emphasis > issued in most public statements... Neither Sun nor Debian have at any point said that Sun Java is free software -- it's been uploaded to non-free for precisely that reason. If anyone does think that, it's pretty easy to clarify for them -- Debian's stance is that free software is important, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore non-free software that our users want. > OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the > problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least > damaging route to go for, imho. You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's not Debian's position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards improving the current license and developing sufficient confidence in the Debian and free software community to release Java under an entirely free license. The end goal isn't to turn this into a PR stunt to make sure Debian's viewed the right way, it's both to help our users get software they need, free or not, and to encourage more people to make their software free. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns -- Debian Project Leader
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature