Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 12:11:01AM -0700, Johan Walles wrote:
> >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?
> 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
If you want Debian to sign something, then nobody else is bound by that
contract; you're making Debian agree to something, but I (a user) havn't
agreed to it in any way, so it seems to not make sense that you'd allow me
to redistribute it (as an "indirect distributor") without agreeing to anything
while requiring Debian to sign something to do the same thing.