[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 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".

> > > 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?

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?

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?

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

Reply to: