[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sun Java available from non-free



Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 01:46, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:06:42AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> > I personally thinks it hurts our users, and as a secondary effect,
> > us. Beeing distributable is a property that should not be depends
> > upon the time, the color of your hair, or the phase of the moon.

> > Java license (especially clause 4) makes the distribution of a
> > specific version of java beeing revocable, which can hurts a lot of
> > users that may then depends on it. A re-licensing e.g. would not be
> > the same, because the last previous version that had a
> > distributable license would still be allowed to stay in non-free
> > until full deprecation or even for life.

> These are fine reasons why Sun should be encouraged to make Java free
> software, instead of merely making it redistributable; or why we
> should educate users about the importance of Free Software and why
> they should think twice before accepting non-free solutions.  This
> might even be an argument for Debian discontinuing non-free
> altogether.

> But I don't really see that they apply as reasons to keep Java out of
> non-free.  Non-free is, well, non-free: very little, if any, of the
> stuff in there is distributed under terms that would prevent a
> copyright holder from later forbidding us from distributing the
> existing work, AFAIK, and there's no reason in general that we should
> be *happy* with the licenses of any works in non-free (though some
> individuals in the community may be).

I understand your point, but given that make-jpkg (aka java-package) 
exists and works great (i've been a user of it since quite a lot of 
time, and that had never failed me), I don't see much an improvement 
over java-package.

beeing in non-free versus make-jpkg is IMHO making the tacit promise 
that java will remain here forever (I mean in our archive, I really 
hope java won't stay in *non-free* forever, I'd be really happy to see 
it enter main). If it has to be removed from non-free at some point, 
because of Sun exercising one of their retroactive clause, then I think 
we have failed our users.

we are *currently* allowed to redistribute java, I agree with that: yes, 
if we have any problem, removing java from the archive *is* a valid 
action, and saves us from any trouble (every clause is written under 
the form [ do $foo or don't ship / stop shipping java ]).. My concern 
is with the "currently".

IMHO, *even* in non-free, packages should be distributable for the 
lifetime of one stable release (e.g. for something like 5 years -- it's 
an example). I know some packages are (or have been) in non-free 
because debian benefits of an exception to have the right to distribute 
those. I've always hopped those exceptions honoured that fact (meaning 
that a package that enters non-free will be able to remain here in a 
predictable manner for the lifetime of that stable release). If not, I 
really think we should re-evaluate some bits of non-free, because to 
me, it sounds like a lie.

even if it's non-free and that our support is going to be harmed in many 
ways due to the non-freeness of the package, the two properties that 
non-free should ensure are:
 * the fact that we are allowed to distribute the packages ;
 * a minimal durability of that package in the archive.
else, we are proposing random bits of shit, that any user is already 
able to install himself from non-official sources. I don't see any 
added value that we have without point 2.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpBdbmA6XOQl.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: