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

Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:
    Mark> I don't think that the concerns are about the extra clauses
    Mark> that Blackdown added in their supplemental license. They
    Mark> could be a bit more clear as has already been noted. It is a
    Mark> bit unclear how "Linux distribution" is defined.  Does that
    Mark> include *BSD based OSes, does it include HURD based OSes,
    Mark> any other Free Operating Systems? Is it enough to include a
    Mark> linux kernel in you distribution to call it a "linux
    Mark> distribution", etc. And it is a bit how "users" are
    Mark> defined. When is someone part of the "distribution" and when
    Mark> is someone only a "user"?

"A Distribution using a Linux kernel".  HTF anyone can consider *BSD
OSes etc as Linux distributions is beyond me but I'll get the term
"Linux Distribution" defined in the supplemental terms.

    Mark> The real concerns that have been posted to debian-legal are
    Mark> about the other clauses. James Troup mentioned point 2 from
    Mark> the Sun Supplemental License terms:

    >> | (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
    >> replace | any component(s) of the Software
    >> Since we actually do this[1] albeit not in the same package,
    >> does this disqualify us from putting it in non-free?

No, that specifically talks about the j2sdk and the j2re (as does all
of the licence).  You can't add code to the J2SE tarballs that replaces
functionality already in the J2SE tarballs.  For the sake of clarity I
will get that explicitly specified in the supplemental terms as well.

    Mark> The other concern mentioned on debian-legal by Stephen
    Mark> Stafford was:

    >> There is *also* the rest of this clause: (vi) 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 the use or distribution of any and all Programs
    >> and/or Software.
    >> I read this as saying that if anyone who gets the software from
    >> Debian decides to sue Sun then Debian, as distributor, would be
    >> liable to pay Sun's legal fees.

No, that says you can't sue Sun.  You can't sue Debian anyway; it
doesn't legally exist.


"And what do we burn apart from witches?"... "More witches!"

Reply to: