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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [...]
> >
> > > And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> > > like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> > > is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the
> > > loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive
> > > maintainers.
> >
> > The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)
> That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
> decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there
> is absolutely no accountability for anyone on debian-legal -- anyone,
> developer or not, who agrees with the social contract or not, can reply
> to queries raised on this list with their own opinion. If people have
> weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> that's entirely their choice.
> > and I'm
> > 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.
> We do not indemnify Sun for any actions Sun takes.

DLJ version 1.1 says that you do not indemnify (2f) Sun only in the case of:

You shall not be obligated under Section 2(f)(i) if such claim would not have
    occurred but for a modification made to your Operating System by
    someone not under your direction or control, and you were in
    compliance with all other terms of this Agreement.  If the Software
    README file permits certain files to be replaced or omitted from
    your distribution, then any such replacement(s) or omission(s)
    shall not be considered a breach of Section 2(a).

It will be sane&safe to arrange notarised that if Sun thinks there is a 
license breach then the only actions that could be performed against Debian 
and its legal entities are the removal of the software from the official 
Debian archive.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: