Tom,
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Tom Marble wrote:
Thanks to the comments here [1] (and also [2] [3] [4]) we have
worked to incorporate your feedback to further clarify
the intent of the DLJ.
We have made an updated revision to the DLJ FAQ (now version 1.2)
which is publicly
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...]
And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other
directions in debian policy, but it's usually
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
[...] If people have
weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
that's entirely their choice.
Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...]
[snip]
4. there's already working java in main; and
Partly/somewhat/mostly working.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is common sense really valid?
For example, it is common sense to
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy
s2.3. It is a
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:34 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life
scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to,
say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in
such a way that it would no
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
should be, and arguably IS,
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, it doesn't say that: it says If in doubt, send mail to -legal. It
doesn't say if the license is doubtful, which is a different matter
entirely.
We've been told both James and Jeroen extensive contact with
Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually
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
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
This is definitely wrong. SPI should not be involved in licence
approval. Firstly, because licence approval is often a political
decision for Debian. And secondly because SPI is not the licencee and
it is very important for this
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements):
The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
announcement:
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
STANDARD EDITION
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 14:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
I don't understand why, as SPI President, you'd bring up concerns
regarding SPI's legal position in the middle of a thread on -devel and
-legal, without having discussed it on spi-board, having consulted SPI's
attorney as to the
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
Nobody was suggesting that, and I fail to understand why it is in
anyone's interests for you to ratchet up the heat on this issue
another notch by making remarks like
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, 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
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
is that the above is good advice and the closer we can make the
relationship between SPI's
Wouter Verhelst writes:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 08:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
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.
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
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
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
for the effects of everything in our operating system?
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
likely, then SPI
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
not only for Sun Java.
Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Mike Bird writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free):
Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal -
- a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has
placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun.
This is obviously not possible.
Debian is not a legal
John Goerzen writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free):
Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
indemnify Sun
Who is purporting to commit SPI to indemnifying Sun ?
AFAICT ftpmasters are indemnifying Sun. This is silly of them but
probably not actually fatal.
OK, I'll chime in. I just hope I'm not making matters worse.
First, obligatory disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a Debian
developer, I'm not a new maintainer applicant either. And I'm certainly
not going to make demands on anybody. I'm a resident of Norway, so that
is the legal system I
John Goerzen writes (Re: Who can make binding legal agreements):
The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
announcement:
SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. (SUN) IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT (JDK - THE SOFTWARE) TO YOU ONLY
Yes, but who is
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
Right, so I was mistaken.
An
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
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
is that the above is
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 09:00, Mike Bird wrote:
Hi Thijs,
The DLJ is governed by California law and controlling US federal
law [DLJ (14)]. Under the explicit terms [DLJ (14)] and under
the parole evidence rule the judge cannot consider anything other
than the literal pedantic terms of the
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 03:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
Mike Bird writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free):
Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal -
- a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has
placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun.
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
First of all, corporate winds can change. But really my point is not
that SPI should have rejected this license. My point is that SPI should
have been consulted about the indemnification so that we could get the
advice
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
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
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And hi to everyone from /.!
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along
at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun
Java' on debian-devel-announce would have
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
its content.
It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
opportunity. If you disagree with his course of actions, perhaps
dropping him a private mail
Trading alert!
Just do yourself a favor and watch A B S Y tomorrow morning, and
don't say we didn't tell you...
Talk about flying under the radar? Isn't that what we look for?
Trade Date : Monday, June 7th, 2006
Company Name : AbsoluteSKY
Ticker : A B S Y
Price : $0.95
11month Target : $2
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument
that licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think
that this revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au
[...] If people have
weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
that's entirely their choice.
Yes,
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Jeremy Hankins writes (Non-DD's in debian-legal):
I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
on d-l?
Actually, I think they
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
So what am I trying to do?
Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself?
As I've said already, I don't want SPI to be involved in
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:15:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
And hi to everyone from /.!
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing
along
at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not
49 matches
Mail list logo
