Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 03:58:18PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > Don't you think that the main problem here is that there *wasn't* any
> > discussion, at least for the vast majority of Debian developers and
> > users?
> No, if we should discuss before taking any action we wouldn't get
> anything done. If you really want to contest the decision, you have the
> That's it, but it would be unproductive.
How so? a GR to get it back out again because of a bad licence seems
like a good idea at the moment (but, IANADD, so your milage may vary).
It seems that there's a fairly large group of people that do not agree
with the licence, and from the discussion on the list I'm inclined to
agree with them.
> > And yes, as a Debian user I'm surprised that such decisions are
> > taken behind closed doors; this is not a security related issue and it
> > wouldn't have done any harm to Debian to discuss this in the open.
> Someone from Sun contacts you to examinate a new license for Java and ask
> you advice and all, and ask you to keep that info private. What do you
> respond to him ? "No sorry, we really don't care, go away"?
Bing bing bing... and so they become too close to the situation...
> There was no other choice, that's all.
Yes there was, just because you're reviewing a licence and giving
feedback doesn't then mean that it should be added to the archive
> > If that had delayed the inclusion, so be it; after several years without
> > Sun's Java in Debian, some more weeks wouldn't have hurt neither users
> > nor the project itself.
> And we would have lost an opportunity to do some PR stuff and show
> everyone that we're an important player in the Linux world.
Ah right, so it's all a PR excercise... I assume that it was part of the
planning that it'd go in and *then* there'd be an uproar about it then,
that's *great* PR that is.
> The choice has already been made. Both sides have positive sides and
> negative ones. The choice has been made, no point in discussing it over
> again and again.
*sigh* - so, in your eyes there's no fix, it's a one off "it's been
done, let's move on" and leave it in non-free?
> > Oh, and the impression that pushing non-free packages in after several
> > hours has a high priority, while (license-wise) simple packages linger
> > for weeks in NEW was probably a bonus.
> I have to agree this sucks but if you have the schedule in mind it's easy
> to understand:
> - NEW is done by Joerg usually, he's organizing debconf so there's a
> backlog due to that
> - Sun guys are here at debconf and finalize discussions with the java
> maintainers (Jeroen, Matthias Klose, Barry Hawkins), the package is
> finally uploaded and immediately installed by Jeroen (or another
> - We make an announce (almost) the same day than Sun announces its stuff
> at Javaone ...
Righhhhht... and this is good in what way?
> > > > It would be bad PR if Debian will have to remove Sun Java from the
> > > > archive, shortly after public announcements that it accepted it in.
> > >
> > > No it wouldn't.
> > Well, there I disagree with you: it would. At the very least, it would
> > give the impression that Debian can't decide what it wants.
> No, it would simply show that Sun is not committed to what they told us.
> We have been reasonable and accepted to work with them. If they change
> their mind, then it's Sun which is not reasonable.
Errr, hang on... surely it shouldn't have been accepted in to the
archive *until* the commitment had reached it's potential so that we
then didn't have this endless debate on the list, and the potential of a
GR? Surely it's up to the project to decide what's fit for inclusion,
and with the current licence, I don't see as it is.