On 5/25/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/5/25, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > You have to defend and *indemnify* Sun. Essentially, promise to > pay them whatever it costs if someone tries to hold them liable. > Nothing about "make sure that the right party gets the blame". > I've read through the license once more and still don't agree with you. Let's read that part again (about indemnification):(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 (ii) your use or distribution of the Software in violation of the terms of this Agreement or applicable law. You shall not be obligated under Section 2(f)(i) if such claim would not have occurred but for a modification made to your Operating System by someone not under your direction or control, and you were in compliance with all other terms of this Agreement. In short this says (from the FAQ): - Indemnify Sun against claims arising from your OS or your violation of the DLJ (or any applicable law) Note that you are not responsible for changes made to your OS distribution by downstream users or distributors when such changes are out of your control. To me this says that (i) we will defend Sun from any lawsuit originating from faults in our own distribution, but as Hisham pointed out, we don't give any guarantees, so this is no risk.
It is a little risk. People file lawsuits with little concern for sueing the right person. Often a "let the courts sort it out" mentality applies. Regarding faults caused by our distribution, we're at a higher than average risk. I'm sure the binaries are compiled expecting a /usr prefix and not /Programs/JDK/1.5. Add to that, the lack of a "usable" test suite, we don't know what will break.
(ii) we will defend Sun from any lawsuit originating from faults where we have distributed a JRE (or JDK), where we have not complied with the DLJ.
If the DLJ is not complied with Sun will revoke our license.
(iii) we don't have to indemnify Sun if we redistribute the JRE (or JDK) according to the DLJ.
huh?
(iv) we don't have to indemnify Sun when the fault arises from any chages that the end user has done, where we cannot control such changes.
ok.
> The DLJ overrides any "no warranty" statement made to Sun: > [...] > Agreement is the entire agreement between you and Sun relating to > its subject matter. It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous > oral or written communications, proposals, representations and > warranties and prevails over any conflicting or additional terms > of any quote, order, acknowledgment, or other communication > between the parties relating to its subject matter during the term > of this Agreement. > [...] > > One could try suing other people after Sun take up your > indemnification, but is their Java worth that risk? There > are lots of other implementations out there. I'm no lawyer, but as I see it, as long as we comply with the DLJ when we redistribute the JRE (or JDK), we are safe. Why else do you think that distributions like Debian, Ubuntu and Gentoo are willing to "take the risk", if the risks were that high?
They have legal representation that makes this less scary. In the event of a lawsuit, this is best case: 1. Someone sues Sun due to Java on Gobo (Note Gobo not named in suit). 2. Suns lawyers show up in court waving DLJ and screaming indemnification. 3. Case is thrown out. 4. We receive a bill for Sun's legal defense -- Carlo J. Calica _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
