Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns <email@example.com>
> > > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
> > > > all the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee
> > > > liable for the effects of everything in our operating system?
> > >
> > > If you're actually claiming that's what it does, then I guess there is.
> > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and
> > downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating
> > System.
> Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life
> scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to,
> say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in
> such a way that it would no longer behave as documented?
> I could imagine a situation where compiler bugs would make an
> application misbehave, but that doesn't apply to a binary-only non-free
> piece of code.
> I could imagine a situation where library ABI changes break the
> application in such a way that it would no longer even _start_, but I
> can hardly imagine that people would want to sue anyone over that --
> unless suddenly java would no longer start while they're running stable,
> but I don't foresee that ABI changes happening in stable (do you?)
> I could imagine a bug in glibc having an effect on every application
> which tries to make use of the particular buggy library call.
> What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
> only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
> (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do
> so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there;
> and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider
> than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not
> under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to
> idemnify Sun.
> If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I
If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
"the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any
directly into the license ? And you are not to be liable for that only if the
modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a
new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function
properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone
should be be held liable for that break. Who's that ? Upsteam ?
 (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun
and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities,
settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees)
incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any
third party that arises or results from (i) the use or distribution
of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner, or
(ii) your use or distribution of the Software in violation of the
terms of this Agreement or applicable law. 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.
> Fun will now commence
> -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
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