Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
> > changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System.
>
> Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life
> scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to,
> say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in
> such a way that it would no longer behave as documented?
Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
not only for Sun Java. We know that debian has contained buggy
software in the past and it's probable that it will in future,
despite our best efforts.
[...]
> and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider
> than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not
> under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to
> idemnify Sun.
How does it do that? In general, upstreams are not allowed
to change directly what is released as Debian. Ultimately,
it's debian developers that decide what modifications are made
to the Operating System and are controlled (heh!) and directed
by the various project agreements and processes, so I don't
see how those modifications are excluded.
> If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I
> am.
Likewise. I think you're ignoring that the indemnification
is broad, while the exclusion is narrow. What do I miss?
Feel free to reply to -legal only if you prefer.
This doesn't seem like a technical development topic now.
--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: