Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>
> 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.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other
directions in debian policy, but it's usually seen as good practice and
developers usually take a dim view of such needless problem-making.
> >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.
That doesn't change my surprise at them going off at half-cock about
such a weighty responsibility.
> >-legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely
> debian-legal is just a mailing list and does not hold beliefs.
FWIW, I agree. Anthony Towns was personifying it in the section to which
I replied and I wished to make my point in similar language.
I didn't notice anyone correcting his original post when I wrote that.
Actually, I still can't see such a correction. Maybe, just maybe, the
meaning was bleeding obvious to everyone else.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct