Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 5/21/06, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> The precise terms are to be found in the license: as long as the license
> is unchanged or unamended (with legally binding additions), the issues
> should not be considered solved...
No one has addressed my question about estoppel. My guess is that Sun's
publicly stated interpretation of a clause of the license is more legally
binding than you think it is, but I'd love to see a legal opinion.
Given the word "estoppel" only has meaning in jurisdictions deriving
from English common law, I think it'd be silly to assume it works the
way you think it does in any of the other jurisdictions Debian or any
of its mirrors may come in contact with... If the choice-of-venue
clause is debatable, then certainly any talk of estoppel is also.
Certainly when it comes to licences, I'd say the written version
trumps anything. After all, that can be verified, I havn't heard
anything verbally from Sun myself saying what may or may not be
allowed. But IANAL.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Reply to: