On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 01:46:29AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > 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. Well, this seems to have just changed in the case of the DLJ. > 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. No, we do not. We accept quite informal clarifications/waivers/license fixes from copyright holders, in practice. > 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. That's not actually clear to me; "alternate technologies" is very vague. I'm also not convinced that dropping the java-runtime provide from the Sun Java packages is the sort of thing Sun intends with this, either. Basically, it seems to me that the cited clarification from Tom happens to not clarify much after all... BTW, if jython is the only package that poses a problem for this clause, I'm not sure there's much to worry about anyway here: jython is RC-buggy and likely to be dropped from etch, because it build-depends on (and implements) python2.1, which is 3 stable releases behind where we expect the main python implementation to be for etch. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
