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

Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 14 Oct 2001 6:52 pm, you wrote:
> >>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Stafford <stephen@clothcat.demon.co.uk>
> >>>>> writes:
>     Stephen> I am sorry, but licenses which start to talk about
>     Stephen> indemnifying immediately start warning bells in my head.
>     Stephen> If companies are going to release under a free license
>     Stephen> (and get the fanfare of good publicity that goes with
>     Stephen> that) then the license they release under should damn
>     Stephen> well BE free.
> This is the crux of the issue.  People (read Debian developers) still
> expect packages in non-free to have free licences.  They don't.
> That's why they're in non-free.
> Indemnification is a standard corporate practice and necessary for
> the officers of such corporations to complete their fiduciary duty to
> the owners of said corporations.  Expecting *any* software produced
> by a corporation not to include indemnification is simply naive.

Granted.  I *still* want clarification from Sun that the clause does 
not mean that if one of our users sues Sun then we are liable to pay 
Sun's costs.  I preferably want that stated in the license somewhere.

If it *does* mean that then I do not believe that we can distribute it.

- -- 
Stephen Stafford
finger bagpuss@debian.org to get gpg public key
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org


Reply to: