Re: Bug#645881: critical update 29 available

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

* Matthias Klose:

> On 12/11/2011 01:07 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Sonntag, 11. Dezember 2011, Philipp Kern wrote:
>>> sorry, but I'd rather like to have an announcement that it has a bug,
>> 
>> me too, for all the reasons Philipp noted.
>> 
>> It's also trivial to download the fixed jdk from oracle and build a fixed
>> package, so IMHO an announcement containing these information plus no
>> removal would be best:
>
> the DLJ bundles were created because you are not allowed to re-distribute the
> jdk packages from oracle. Did that change recently?

The main difference seems to be this (DLJ first):

| [...] Sun also grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable,
| royalty-free limited license to reproduce and distribute the
| Software [...]  provided that: (b) the Software is distributed with
| your Operating System, and such distribution is solely for the
| purposes of running Programs under the control of your Operating
| System and designing, developing and testing Programs to be run
| under the control of your Operating System; [...]

| [...] Oracle grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited
| license without fees to reproduce and distribute the Software,
| provided that (i) you distribute the Software complete and
| unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of
| running, your Programs, [...]

Other problematic clauses (indemnification, no bundling with
reimplementatiosn of java.* classes and so on) are also part of the
DLJ.

(I still don't understand why the DLJ was suitable for non-free, so
I'm clearly not qualified to judge these license matters for Debian.)