Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Monday 22 May 2006 06:56, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:47:01PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> > On Monday 22 May 2006 13:35, you wrote:
> > > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings
> > > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which we
> > > could be sued and lose a case in relation to this license. Do you?
> >
> > While I understand your argument about Sun asking for this, and even
> > found it serious, please do not argue the judges are human being after
> > all... Judges aply law, and that what they are meant for.
>
> Sure. They are, however, supposed to apply some common sense in doing
> so, rather than acting like an automaton.
Sun says Java distributors indemnify Sun. Debian does not have to
distribute Java. Let us suppose - hypothetically - that Debian rashly
decides to distribute Java.
A supertanker runs aground, discharges a million gallons of crude oil,
and the environmental cleanup costs run into the billions. Everybody
remotely connected to the event sues everybody else. The disaster
might have been avoided had a Java weather applet in Firefox on a
Debian laptop not crashed due to a known bug that Sun had not fixed.
Suddenly everyone sues Sun.
Sun tells the court that there is a unilateral contract. By the act of
distributing Java, Debian has agreed to indemnify Sun. No signature
is required in law.
Suddenly Debian is in court and looking at millions of dollars in legal
fees even if found not liable. Most likely the Master and the Owner
take most of the blame, and Debian is found liable for only a few
percent. That's a few tens of millions of dollars.
To the judge, it's not only the law, it's just common sense.
--Mike Bird
Reply to: