On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 12:36:43AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: > Dave Hooper wrote: > >>In practice, a common-sense interpretation, > >>which takes into account the "spirit" of what is being said, is the way > >>lawyers (after you have paid them lots of money) will generally advise. > > > >Ye-essss... and taking into account the spirit of not hosting the JRE on a > >public website would be to ... continue hosting the JRE on a public > >website? > > The "spirit" is not that we can't host the JRE on a public website under > any circumstances, the spirit is about not setting up a source for the > JRE which would compete with Sun's website. Clearly if we took the > precautions we all agreed to months ago, this would not be the case.
If it is nonlistable, then perhaps. The anonymous person who set up a site linking to it would be committing the copyright infringement, even though it was hosted by us... do you think Sun would see it that way? They have deliberately not made themselves clear. > > >A common-sense interpretation would suggest this is not the case (and even > >a > >badly-paid lawyer would probably be inclined to agree) > > Even a badly paid lawyer would note that you are begging the question. > Sun's license does not preclude making the JRE available on a public > server. Sun's license precludes allowing people to install the JRE from > your public server without installing your software. Okay, so how are we going to not allow them to install the JRE from our site without installing the software? > > 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
