Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <email@example.com>
To: Johan Walles <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:31:12 -0400
Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Johan Walles <email@example.com> writes:
In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which
even enough for non-free.
Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why
this would be so?
Because Debian would have signed it, but nobody else would have.
Debian would have executed a contract, in which in return for
consideration BEA granted a licence to Debian. Nobody else would have
received that license.
But only Debian would need the re-distribution license agreement, as
only Debian is re-distributing (directly and indirectly).
Why would anybody else need a license because Debian is
re-distributing? For example, Download.com have signed a
re-distribution agreement. Are you saying this means all Windows users
would have to sign one as well?
[...] But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that
its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code.
By section 2.1, mirrors wouldn't have a problem:
2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive,
non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise
include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and
(ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or
indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End
Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement.
Nope. Mirrors don't get agreement from end users, and Debian has no
interest in forcing end users to agree to anything.
Where does it say that mirrors need agreement from end users? And
Debian asks end users to agree to stuff all the time. This list is all
about what Debian asks end users to agree to, why would JRockit be
different in this respect from anything else?
Mirrors are also not merely distributors -- consider some Mirror
shipping this software in one place and some sort of Value-Added
Solution in another.
How would that make a mirror something other than an indirect means of
distribution for Debian?
Mirrors would be covered by "indirectly through multiple tiers of
distributors". Forkers would have to sign their own redistribution
agreement. I'll wait with covering end-users until I understand why
it would be required to let them re-distribute :-).
What if an end-user starts up his own mirror? Not all the mirrors are
registered with Debian. For example, many colleges and companies run
private Debian mirrors, distributing only to their students or
Why would this make them not be an indirect means of distribtion for
Debian? They are obviously distributing Debian (making them
distributors), and they aren't directly Debian (making them indirect
Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email