On Wed, 17 May 2006 23:09:30 -0700 Don Armstrong wrote:
> Executive Summary:
[...]
< I'd recommend that ftp-masters
> consider pulling this package from non-free until these issues are
> resolved (or at least understood.)
Agreed.
[...]
> > 2. License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this
> > Agreement, [...] provided that: (a) the Software and any
> > proprietary legends or notices are complete and unmodified;
>
> This seems to cause a problem with actually packaging the software
> unless the Debian package counts as the Software... this seems to mean
> that any time that the package should be changed the maintainers need
> Sun to actually distribute the software to them (or otherwise grant
> them the ability to modify the software.)
You're right: this is another major issue.
>
> > (b) the Software is distributed with your Operating System, and
> > such distribution is solely for the purposes of running Programs
> > under the control of your Operating System and designing,
> > developing and testing Programs to be run under the control of
> > your Operating System;
>
> non-free is not part of Debian so we definetly don't distribute it as
> part of the Operating system.
Right! I hadn't noticed this point before.
I hereby retract my statement about 2(b) not being violated by Debian.
It seems that the Debian Project is indeed violating this clause too.
>
> > (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to
> > run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
> > the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;
>
> This means that we can't distribute eclispse or anything else which
> implements part of the Java API (or if you're going to read this
> clause as broadly as possible,[1] things like perl which implement
> similar functionality in that perl is an implementation of a cross
> platform language Perl.)
Exactly.
>
> > (d) you do not remove or modify any included license agreement
> > or impede or prevent it from displaying and requiring
> > acceptance;
>
> We may need to modify debconf preseeding to make sure that the user
> can't prevent the agreement from being shown...
And that's another problem, thanks for catching it up.
>
> > (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from
> > and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts
> > and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in
> > connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party
> > that arises or results from (i) the use or distribution of your
> > Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner, or (ii)
> > your use or distribution of the Software in violation of the
> > terms of this Agreement or applicable law.
>
> I'm really not entirely sure what this clause is getting at, but it
> seems that the intention is that Debian needs to indemnify Sun for any
> litigation resulting by users of the package of Sun's JDK which Debian
> has distributed, even if Sun is grossly negligent.[2]
Maybe...
>
> > 4. COMPATIBILITY. If you exercise the license in Section 2, and Sun
> > or a licensee of the Software (under section 4(b)) notifies you
> > that there are compatibility issues [...] caused by the
> > interaction of the Software with your Operating System, then
> > within ninety (90) days you must either: (a) modify the
> > Operating System in a way that resolves the compatibility issue
> > (as determined by Sun) and make a patch or replacement version
> > available [...]
>
> Oh, right... so if the Sun JDK is buggy, we have to modify our
> operating system to make it unbuggy in some way that makes Sun happy.
> Makes sense to me.
[...]
As I already said, we are in chains...
--
:-( 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:
pgpaoipYNtGB4.pgp
Description: PGP signature