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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
> > > in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
> > > (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do
> > > so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there;
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I
> > > am.
> >
> > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
> >
> > "the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part
> > thereof, in any manner"
> >
> > directly into the license?
> I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say

It does matter in the courts.

>      You shall not be obligated under Section 2(f)(i) if such claim
>      would not have occurred but for a modification made to your
>      Operating System by someone not under your direction or control,
>      and you were in compliance with all other terms of this Agreement.
> If it didn't, you had a point. As it is, you don't.

I disagreed, look below.

> > And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made
> > to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new
> > upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function
> > properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license)
> > someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam?
> That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things
> we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the
> stuff for which we are not directly responsible.

It easily could became Our Problem(TM) if the break is caused by patch(es) 
applied to upstream versions by Debian Developer(s) ? How can you ensure that 
a break will not happend or in a case of such indemnification wont be more 
than Sun's removal from the official Debian archives.

pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB 

Reply to: