2006/5/21, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
"Jonas Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2006/5/19, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The DLJ FAQ seems to contradict the licence in other places, > > such as the need to indemnify Sun for a wide range of things. > > Why not wait for Sun to figure out WTF they really mean and > > present a consistent and understandable licence and FAQ? > > > I can't see what part of the FAQ you're refering to. I can see no > contradiction between the DLJ and the DLJ FAQ regarding indemnation.DLJ says: 2. [...] (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from (i) the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner, or [...] while DLJ FAQ says: 12. Why does Sun ask for indemnification? What indemnification am I providing to Sun? I'm concerned that I will be held responsible for things over which I have no control. Simply put, Sun requires indemnification to limit its exposure for issues that are not Sun's fault. If your conduct or your OS causes a problem that results in a third-party claim, then Sun expects you to take responsibility for it. Note that you are not indemnifying Sun against claims that are a result of something in Sun's code. You also are not indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes that a downstream distributor has made to your OS. The FAQ says it's a limitation. The DLJ says otherwise AFAICT. It looks to me like a power-grab. Whoever is going to agree to the DLJ probably didn't write all of the Operating System (it was people like the GNU developers, the Linux developers and so on) so why the $DEITY is distributing Java worth indemifying Sun for what those other developers do? It seems to fundamentally miss the point of a GNU/Linux distribution being a combination of other software in a handy ready-to-eat format. Sun says the DLJ-ee is responsible for it all. How confident are you that nothing in gobolinux can get Sun sued somehow?
To me the DLJ doesn't read that way. Instead I have to make sure that Sun cannot be held liable for anything that happens because of my Operating System. That is my responsibility, not to take the blame for it, but to make sure that the right party gets the blame. As GoboLinux comes with no waranty, it means that all that is left is that I have to take the responsibility for the code I write and redistribute, unless I make sure that no warranty is given.
> You have to agree that Sun is not responsible for anything that affect > your computer, but you don't have to take responsibility for what > Sun's code do to others. You have to agree to take responsibility for what others' code does to people who sue Sun, AFAICS.
No, I have the responsibility to make sure that the right part gets the blame.
> You don't have to make them click "I agree". You could just have a > download link. So you click "I download"? :-)
Well, this was an bad example as it is a clickthrough. Maybe a better example would be to have a link to the DLJ on the download page and just point to that the download is under licinse. Then the obligation still is fulfilled but it's the users responsibility to read what license they agree to. -- /Jonas _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
