Re: Bug#37599: jdk1.1: no permission to distribute
>>>>> "John" == John Hasler <email@example.com> writes:
John> You have signed it. Debian has not.
I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that Debian is a legal fiction and
unable to sign anything; that's why SPI exists.
>> (iv) Derived Binaries are distributed subject to a license
John> What are the terms of the license agreement under which you
John> have distributed the Derived Binaries to Debian?
>> ...containing terms and conditions at least as protective of
>> Sun as those included in the binary code license used by Sun
>> for internet distribution of the Java binaries.
John> And what are these terms and conditions? Does your
John> agreement with Debian contain them?
The software package distributed by the Debian project contains them,
yes. The file LICENSE, to which Richard was originally refering
contains a verbatim copy of the binary code licence mentioned above.
I can have no legal agreement with Debian. See above.
>> Therefore, such binaries as I produce may be legitimately
>> distributed in non-free, as they have been for some time.
John> Without more information it is not at all clear that this is
I presume that if Sun, as original licencee, accepted a rewording of
the Binary Code Lincence that allowed unlimited distribution on a
gratis only basis, there would be no further difficulties with the jdk
in non-free. Do you feel otherwise?
Long noun chains don't automatically imply security. - Bruce Schneier