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

Re: JRockit in non-free, part II



-----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: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:58:05 -0400
Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II

Johan Walles <walles@mailblocks.com> writes:
From: Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>
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.

If Debian disappeared, the mirrors wouldn't be an indirect means of distribution of the Debian JRockit package. Thus, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the JRockit .debs anymore. As long as they are mirroring the official Debian JRockit package, IMO they are an indirect means for Debian to distribute JRockit, and are thus covered by the re-distribution license agreement.

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.

The license says that end users have to "agree to be bound by" the EULA, not that they have to sign it. According to my (admittedly quite weak) understanding of copyright law, the alternative to agree to the EULA is the default license which says "hands off" basically.

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?

The only thing this license agreement touches is Debian's distribution of the JRockit .debs. IMO, if a mirror mirrors only the JRockit Debian package that would be an indirect means for Debian to distribute JRockit. What other things are being mirrored as well lies outside the JRockit redistribution agreement.

 Regards //Johan


----------------------------------------------
Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email
http://about.mailblocks.com/info



Reply to: