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

Re: JRockit in non-free, part II

Johan Walles <walles@mailblocks.com> writes:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>
> To: Johan Walles <walles@mailblocks.com>
> Cc: henning@makholm.net; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:31:12 -0400
> Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
> Johan Walles <walles@mailblocks.com> writes:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which
> isn't
>>>> 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).

No.  In a case where Debian disappears tomorrow, can the mirrors
continue to distribute?  Surely, if Debian's indirectly distributing
than the mirrors are directly distributing at the same time.  It
doesn't have to be one or the other.

> 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?

Yes.  As 2.1 says, "...for use by End Users who agree to be bound by
an End User Agreement."  If Download.com is distributing this software
without getting end users to sign something, then they are in
violation of the license they signed.

>>>> [...] But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that
>>> Debian,
>>>> 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?

We covered where it says mirrors need agreement from end users -- "End
Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement."  Debian does
not ask end users to agree to stuff all the time -- everything in the
Debian distribution can be downloaded and used by anybody.  Even in
non-free, it can be distributed.

>> 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?

Perhaps a Mirror has separately signed a distribution agreement.
Perhaps it is also an end-user.  Perhaps all sorts of things.

>>> 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
> distributors).

What if it has significant modifications to Debian Main, and so isn't
just a mirror.  What if it's a mirror of just Debian non-free?  Just
the .deb for this package?

Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: