On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 06:58:08PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and > > > myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is > > > three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to > > > examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive > > > contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. > > You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-) > > The questions asked weren't "Is this okay for non-free?" it's "Did you > mean ____ or ____ when you wrote ____?". The answers to those latter > questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring > it just wastes everyone's time. Several people have already pointed out this bit on top of the said FAQ: Note: This FAQ is provided to help explain the Operating System Distributor License for Java; nothing in this FAQ is intended to amend the license, so please consult the license itself for the precise terms and conditions that actually apply. To my eyes that reads as "please disregard this FAQ." It's simply not authoritative. The FAQ offers no As. Why do you think that we should not ignore it?
Description: Digital signature