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

Re: Yet another JDK1.1 llicence question

On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 05:22:52PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
>     Richard> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Stephen Zander
>     Richard> wrote: [...]
>     >> provided that: (i) the Linux Ports of the JDK is not
>     >> integrated, bundled, combined or associated in any way with a
>     >> product,
>     Richard> This still holds, right?  I would certainly say that the
>     Richard> non-free archive is "associated" with the Debian
>     Richard> distribution, which I would consider to be a "product".
>     Richard> But maybe these terms have specific legal meanings that
>     Richard> I'm not aware of.
> Except that "non-free is not part of Debian", something that comes up
> at least once every flame-war over it's existence.  

Debian and denial are remarkably similar words. Quoting mantras like that
don't really further anyone's understanding of anything. If you consider
stable/main/binary-i386/* to be a "product", then it's completely fair
and reasonable to say that stable/non-free/binary-i386/* and hence the
jdk is "integrated" (/usr instead of /usr/local, postinst scripts, etc),
bundled (they're all under dists/stable) and associated (they're on the
same FTP site, their dependencies are related, etc) with that product.

> In fact, quite a
> number of packages in non-free have restrictions on aggregation.

There are a lot with restrictions on you selling it (which is why non-free
doesn't get put on CDs) but I'm not familiar with many restrictions on
simple aggregation.

> The catch here is that Sun licenses the JDK & JRE slightly differently
> and Debian's policy doesn't deal well with sublicensing.  I can Try
> and break the file in two if that would make things clearer.

We don't care about sublicensing; the only thing that matters is what
license we and our users have, not what licenses anyone else (like
Blackdown) might have to worry about. If we (and our mirrors) don't
have permission to distribute it (and continue to maintain our distro,
of course), we can't distribute it; if our users don't have permission
to use it, there's no point distributing it.

> The Binary Code Licence does not apply to the Blackdown members.
> Similar terms (hence the "substaially similar" phrase) do apply to
> users of the JDK & JRE produced by the Blackdown team.  Distribution
> is not use, however, hence my ongoing attempts to find language that
> Debian can live with.

The main thing is to make it clear what we can and can't do.


Reply to: