[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#37599: jdk1.1: no permission to distribute

>>>>> "John" == John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> 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
    >> agreement...

    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
    John> true.

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

Reply to: