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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]