On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and > > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is > > three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to > > examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive > > contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. > You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-) The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you mean ____ or ____ when you wrote ____?". The answers to those latter questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring it just wastes everyone's time. > > most important, is that should any of these problems actually happen, > > we can fairly simply just drop Sun Java from non-free if we can't come > > to a better conclusion. > Do you mean we can drop it if problems arise? Or do you mean we can drop > it if we cannot conlcude it's okay to distribute it? > I doubt you mean the first case, as it would be too late then. No, that's not the case -- if we are informed that there is a problem with what we're distributing, we can drop it 90 days after we're so informed, and not have any problems. > Right, but again, why bringing the package with a bad license into the > archive first? Because non-free is for "bad" licenses in the sense that they don't meet the DFSG, and because the Sun license is not "bad" in the sense that it causes any problems that we cannot deal with. > DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any > other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special > treatment? Java is one of the most important packages for which we don't have an effective non-free replacement at present. The only one that I can think of that would be more important would be flash. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature