Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > 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.
> No, not at all. The text clearly says that we are to idemnify Sun in for
> anything anyone could sue them over while doing something involving "the
> use or distribution of (our) Operating System", except if something
> happened "not under (our) direction or control". It doesn't matter that
> you can quote a part of that statement and say "it's too broad! Oh,
> look!", because if you quote part of it, you're not quoting the entire
> statement, and your statement isn't complete nor does it reflect the
> intention of the person who wrote it.
> That's called "basic grammar".
We agree that the license text clearly says the Operationg System distributor
coulb be held liable for any malfunctions caused to their software which
prevent it to operate as expected to. The DLJ license is meant to be for
proprietary OS distributors who can guarantee that to a certain extend and
are ready to indemnify in case of Bad Thing Happend(TM). Obviously this is nt
the case for our operating system.
> > > > 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) ?
> Well, yeah, but then it really was Our Fault(TM). There's nothing wrong
> with standing up for the bad things you've done, is there?
Right, agreed. That's how it should be. Then Debian glibc and kernel teams(at
least) are exposed to be held liable in case of introducing a patch which
causes a Sun's java malfunctions.
> Of course, there _is_ something wrong with standing trial for an honest
> mistake you've made. But do you think a judge have anyone pay a fine if
> they made an honest mistake while creating something that shouts "NO
> WARRANTY" all over? Remember that both Debian and Java do so. Do you
> think many people will sue if they know that the product they've been
> using shouts NO WARRANTY all over the place?
I don't eliminate such a possibility, do you ? In fact shouting "NO WARRANTY"
could encaurage lunatics to file frivolous lawsuits for no good reasons.
> Of course, there'll always be loonies who will sue even if they have no
> case. And of course, there'll always be judges who will issue a verdict
> which is crazy and out of touch with everything else. And while we could
> theoretically try to ensure that never happens to us, I'd rather not go
> down that road.
> > 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.
> I'm sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Could you please reword?
I'm sorry... I missed some words ;-)
How can you ensure that if Sun's java is found to misbehave because of certain
patches applied by Debian Developers to the kernels or glibc versions which
Debian distributes, then the worst reaction against Debian is to be forced to
remove the Sun's java software from the official Debian archives. Or you
believe that if the above mentioned debian developers made a mistake they
should be held liable even the whole Debian operating system shouts "NO
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