Re: Response to the j2se licencing concerns
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE7ydMMFwmY7Xa4pD0RAta+AJ4hy9BQgj+xWYKljoP+unbhVfwxBwCfT5C9
dTvItmpd7EFl4vBF5r+587o=
=MEl1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: