On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:40:42PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: > Dave Hooper wrote: > >>I explained to Sun's lawyers exactly what we were doing and they said > >>its fine. Even if there is still some uncertainty over the exact > >>language they used, our efforts to clarify this issue are more than > >>enough to take the path of least resistance, if Sun has a problem with > >>it - they can let us know. > >Doesn't the fact that they said that it wasn't, to me, constitute Sun > >letting us now? I'll forward those emails to devl tomorrow to let the rest > >of the mailing list decide. > > I really hate having debates over bullshit legal distinctions that are > meaningless in the real world anyway, particularly when they are being > used as an excuse for crippling Freenet usability. > > I don't know who you spoke to at Sun, but I was referred to the person I > spoke to by Bill Joy, Sun's co-founder and Chief Scientist, and I think > there is a very good chance that they outrank whoever you spoke to. In > fact, it might be better if you don't forward any emails to the mailing > list as it can only muddy the waters. I am going with the opinion I got > from the person I spoke to as the coordinator of the Freenet project > that was referred to me by the co-founder of Sun, she said:
There must be some surrealistic reinterpretation going on here. You said that they said: "You are not allowed to host the JRE by itself. If your download bundle includes the JRE, it must also contain added value. You can either bundle the JRE with your app and host that bundle for download, or unbundle the JRE from your app and host only your app", What do you think that means? I would suggest it means YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HOST THE JRE BY ITSELF, and further than "by itself" means as a single file which can be downloaded separately after a simple google search. > > "We do have a requirement, when distributing the JRE, to bundle it with > your own software, in this case freenet. There is nothing in our > requirements that should prevent you from having a "smart" installer, > that installs the JRE only if the user needs it, so long as the JRE is > never installed without also installing the freenet software." > > Our installer does not offer an option to install the JRE without > Freenet, which satisfies her concern. Case closed (not that there would > ever have been a case in a million years anyway). No, because we would be hosting the illegal file. I'm not saying I am right, I am saying there is serious doubt and we should err on the side of caution. > > If you want to look for excuses to make Windows users lives more > difficult then fine, but I would rather look for excuses not to. In the > mean time, could you please put the Windows installer back the way it > was and leave the legal decisions up to me and those I choose to consult > on the matter? This whole thing has wasted far more time, and likely > discouraged far more potential Freenet users, than it ever deserved. I'll need something in writing saying you'll take full responsibility, with 2 witnesses to the fact that you wrote it. If I was going to implement it. Which I am not, unless asked to. > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
