Re: Java licensing (was Re: Discussion - non-free software removal)
- To: Stephen Zander <gibreel@debian.org>
- Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Java licensing (was Re: Discussion - non-free software removal)
- From: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <jfs@computer.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:36:11 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20021119083611.GD5932@dat.etsit.upm.es>
- In-reply-to: <87lm3qqgtf.fsf_-_@debian.org>
- References: <20021112104103.GA29686@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> <20021112105200.GB30177@azure.humbug.org.au> <20021112125113.GA6363@silly.cloud.net.au> <20021113161201.GD18098@mizar.alcor.net> <87heeinswl.fsf@debian.org> <1037459807.18328.1.camel@space-ghost> <20021116154719.GA5949@ashoka.ncst.ernet.in> <87y97tmj7k.fsf@rabbit.fire-swamp.net> <1037499256.24310.5.camel@space-ghost> <87lm3qqgtf.fsf_-_@debian.org>
(first off, I'm not in debian-legal, Cc: me please)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 09:17:16PM -0800, Stephen Zander wrote:
> >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> writes:
> Colin> I don't see how they can prevent a clean-room competing
> Colin> implementation without software patents. A license on
> Colin> their code does nothing to other implementations.
>
(...)
>
> Followups set to debian-legal
>
On this issue, I would appreciate a peer-review of the Debian Java
FAQ [1] from people at debian-legal, specially for the license-related
chapter [2]. Is everyone ok on the wording/explanations?
Regards
Javi
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-java-faq/ch2.html#s2.3
Attachment:
pgpl0uw8kkFy3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: