Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, 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.
>
> While some people cannot imagine that a contract will be
> enforced as written, judges can.
I didn't say I could not imagine that a contract would enforced as
written. I said that I consider the chance for something to actually
occur to be small enough that it can be ignored.
Remember that this is not about Freedom. If it were about Freedom, I
would agree that there is a problem here. But that is not the case; it
is about avoiding to get sued.
I don't think the demands they are making are wrong per se, nor do I
think that the examples of where they /would/ be wrong are realistic, or
have any chance of actually occurring.
[...]
> > > 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.
>
> Debian can argue that it is not responsible for software
> not in Debian archives. However, all software in Debian
> archives is signed in by a DD, a member of Debian's web
> of trust.
>
> A new upstream bug does not affect Debian until Debian is
> changed by the DD's incorporation of the upstream version
> containing the upstream bug. When that change is signed in
> to Debian, that is a change to Debian made by and authorised
> by a DD. At that point, Debian becomes responsible for
> incorporating the upstream bug into Debian, and Debian
> becomes responsible for indemnifying Sun.
That's one way to look at it.
Another way would be to say that if there would be a bug where glibc
does not work as documented, which appears on _every_ glibc-based
platform, then Sun did not do a proper job in testing their software
(since it occurs everywhere, remember), so it's really their fault, not
ours.
Perhaps that depends on the time when the bug is actually introduced.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: