On 5/19/06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip]
The software as distributed is complete, it has all the files in the .deb packages, and the dependencies ensure that on the user's system the software layout is like Sun requires, with the optional bits indeed being optional.
[snip]
Note that the license says "... is distributed *with* your Operating System", and not "is part of". I don't know where you read the "part of" bit? Anyway, we definitely do distribute non-free *with* our OS, ...
[snip]
The license says "distribute [...] to run in conjunction with". We do distribute eclipse, kaffe, gcj, and various others tools and applications, but not "to run in conjunction" with the Sun Java. Our own policy even prevents us from doing so unless we move the aforementioned stuff to contrib.
[snip]
Sun wants that every legal entity using the software agrees to its license, but doesn't want to, and doesn't require, the license to be explicitely affirmed manually on each computer.
[snip]
I think at the very least we can say the licence is terribly worded. The word "with" has at least 27 meanings, the word "software" is not adequately defined. Conjunction also has several possible meanings. Thing like estoppel don't apply the same way everywhere, so you can't rely on things like that. Maybe someone should come back with a "More Carefully Worded New Sun Java Licence" -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/
