Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Anthony Towns <email@example.com>
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
> 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
Whoa. That's not true. There are delegates on debian-legal, delegated
to handle particular -legal matters, as well as various maintainers
and co-maintainers, who are all accountable to debian in their field.
It's a marginal point, but it's not helpful to introduce broad false
statements like that and suggest -legal is entirely non-DD.
> [...] If people have
> weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> that's entirely their choice.
Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's
entirely my choice how to respond to that. Everyone happy with that?
> As far as I've seen most of -legal would have taken the same attitude
> you have -- "there's already working java in main", "I don't use non-free
> anyway", found a few token problems and stopped helping Sun at all.
As previously posted, my motives are more complex. I think it's
interesting that only those two were repeated. I disagree that the
problems are token ones and I don't have much incentive to help
Sun: I'm not motivated by getting in their PR puffs and the DDs who
support Sun seem very belligerent and unwilling to consider bugs.
> > So, I don't think any reasonable person would prefer Sun's FAQ or emails
> > when they aren't clearly explaining particular terms in an obvious way.
> If you want to dismiss the people who disagree with you, including
> myself, as unreasonable, then there's not really any point having this
I don't dismiss them. I don't understand how such reasoning could work.
If you want to dismiss people who disagree with you as pointless, then it
shows a shameful lack of ability to explain and mediate.
> > 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.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
PS: apologies for the odd register in one paragraph.