On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Walter Landry wrote: [...] > For reference, I have attached the proposed license to the end of this > email. Thanks. > My main concern is that section (1) seems to only allow > portability fixes, and only for efforts that are an "approved project > hosted in the OpenJDK Community". Does that mean that Debian can not > independently issue new releases which fix security issues? While > Debian will strive to work with the OpenJDK community to resolve these > issues, Debian can not rely upon upstream to fix these bugs for them. > That was the main source of contention behind the firefox/iceweasel > dispute. > > Otherwise, I do not see any issues with this trademark license. I agree with this analysis. More code changes should be allowed by the trademark license, or otherwise the Debian Project should package OpenJDK under a different name in the first place (in order to avoid future package-rename headaches). My usual disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgprQhOz20kBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature