> Not to mention that it's distasteful from an information freedom > perspective. Here we have Freenet, which enables one to redistribute > stuff far and wide, but we're asking users not to distribute the > program itself? Seems kind of lame.
All of the legalese stuff I agree is something that needs to be looked into and figured out. However, I disagree with the point that we can't distribute Sun's JRE for political-sociological-institutional consistency reasons. First of all, *we* are not asking them not to distribute the JRE, we are telling them that the JRE is convered by Sun's licensing and *Sun* is telling them that they can't redistribute it and we are letting them know this. Many free software projects redistribute libraries which are covered under different licenses and it is quite typical to put in a license notice with notes saying "Except for the foo package, which is under the MPL and the bar package, which is under the SCSL." This is standard practice for bundling things that are under multiple licenses. So we're not doing anything particularly weird there. Now as far as the whole issue of using the Sun JRE at all, I have no problem with it. Freenet does not *require* non-free software, and that's
