Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:16:24AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > This can be fixed by making Jython conflict with sun-java, although I
> > suspect that there may be other packages that also cause problems.
Another fix for this particular problem is to make sun-java not
Provide:java-runtime etc. at all.
> There have been various clarifications that the intent of this clause is to
> prohibit distributing sun-java5 in a configuration that mixes and matches
> parts of Sun's implementation with other Java implementations.
> Why are these clarifications not sufficient when we regularly accept
> clarifications of this nature from other copyright holders?
There are a few problems here:
1) Clarifications from other copyright holders do not come with a big
disclaimer stating that the clarification has no legal weight.
Debian relies on the clarification having legal weight.
2) Clarifications are typically for minor ambiguities. One example is
where someone put code into a project and forgot to change the
license to the project's license, thus creating a conflict.
For cases where there are real problems with the wording of the
license, Debian makes the copyright holder rewrite the license.
3) There are only two clarifications I know of. One is in the
non-binding DLJ FAQ, and the other is from Tom Marble [1]. Neither
of these clarifications limit the restrictions to Java
implementations. For example, in Tom's clarification he says [2]
In a similar way please don't take bits from the Java platform
and use them as part of or to complete alternate technologies
(e.g. plugin.jar).
So using Java's plugin mechanism to implement python plugins for
Jython is not allowed. And this makes sense. Sun would definitely
be unhappy if the JDK were used to implement J++ or C#, especially
because they are not Java.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] It is unclear to me how binding Tom Marble's clarifications are on
Sun. I somehow doubt that he is clearing every email with Sun's
legal department, though I could be wrong.
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00165.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
