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

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

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

     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.

> 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.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Reply to: