Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > 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?
> > Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
> > The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
> > not only for Sun Java.
> Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's sane to allow
> loonies to sue Sun over stuff they have nothing, but really _nothing_ to
> do with? Like, some loonie wants to sue us over his FTP server that
> went berzerk, finds out that Debian doesn't have a lot of money, and
> then sues Sun because, hey, there's this Java binary in the same Debian
> which just _happens_ to be owned by Sun?
A promise to indemnify Sun would not prevent or limit this tactic. It
would instead mean that "Debian" (whatever entity or entities agreed
to that indemnification) would end up paying Sun's legal bills and
damages until "Debian" went bankrupt. The remaining balance would
come out of Sun's bank accounts.
If "Debian" has small bank accounts, I don't see how this helps either
Debian or Sun. If "Debian" has large bank accounts, I don't see how
this is a good prospective use of the money.