Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:43:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Mmm. The impression I got was that people were waiting for the packages
> to be removed from Debian and no one was really all that interested in
> responses from Sun, cf:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00025.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00031.html
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00051.html
Well, that is not accurate. Sun's responses are indeed quite
interesting to Debian. However, if their response is in the form of a
FAQ that explicitly has no legal bearing on the matter, or in the
form of mailing list posts that have no legal bearing on the matter,
they have not yet resolved the problem.
If Debian agrees to do X, and commits itself legally to doing X, which
is what Sun's license is asking, why should our standards for Sun be any
different than for someone else?
If Sun and Debian agree to certain terms in a contract, and then one
party posts a FAQ, or a mailing list post, or whatever, that explicitly
has no legal influence, how does that resolve concerns?
To me, you are confusing two entirely different problems.
1) The FAQ explicitly has no legal bearing on things and, as such,
can't be used to consider whether Debian can distribute something.
2) The FAQ can be a useful place to begin a discussion with Sun on
fixing the license and perhaps putting some of the material in the
FAQ into it, and this has been suggested to them.
Reply to: