Re: Sun Java available from non-free
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
>really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult
>developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before
>agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly.
They do not need too.
>I've not actively worked on this so far because:
I fear thinking about what you could have done if you had chosen to be
>4. there's already working java in main; and
I wish. (Well, actually I don't. I despise java and I am happy if it
will continue to be hard to use, but pretending that the free java
implementations are a replacement for the Sun implementation is bullshit.)
>-legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely
debian-legal is just a mailing list and does not hold beliefs.