* Josh Berkus (email@example.com) wrote: > I think I can tell which side of the debate you were on.
The debate was regarding Sun's JVM being distributed by Debian at all... There wasn't any debate regarding it's free vs. non-free status so far as I'm aware. I don't believe there was ever any intention to include Sun's JVM in Debian/main with it's current license. If you meant something other than free/non-free by 'OSS-compatible' then you might have wanted to make that clear since generally that refers to the OSI Open Source Definition (and/or the DFSG, they're pretty similar tho). I've not heard 'OSS-compatible' used to refer to 'can run under Linux' or 'can run on Debian' before. That'd include things like Oracle. > >I'm actually rather upset to see Sun making such blatently incorrect > >statements. Josh, I truely hope that you weren't actually involved in > >the Sun JVM-in-Debian work and so were unaware of the very important > >distinction between "Distributed by Debian" and "in Debian/main". > > Keep your pants on, geez. I'm actually rather appalled that you could > get so unjustifiably bent out of shape at me *after* we met. Goes to > show you that not everything is improved by personal acquaintance. Actually, I felt that I pretty clearly gave you the benefit of the doubt... For many people it's an unfortunate and pretty likely assumption based on things written on /., etc. It wasn't an attack on you but rather the frustrated realization that the concerns of many in Debian regarding Sun's JVM inclusion in non-free may have been justified. > 2) If you re-read my message, it says: > ... (it's now available for Debian, for example) ... > not ANYTHING about main or distributed or non-free or whatever. If you hadn't intended to refer to Debian's inclusion of the Sun JVM in non-free then I'm rather confused since there has been a trivial-to-use package available in non-free for a long time to download the Sun JVM from Sun and create debs to install it with. So, it's been available *for* Debian for a long time, but was only recently put into non-free.. It was also available prior to that, though a pain to install.. You seemed to use the recent change in status of Sun's JVM (at least in part with regard to Debian...) as justification of your statement that it's OSS-compatible.. That's exactly the misrepresentation which I was addressing. > So, I think you owe me an apology. I apologize for being harsher than I should have. Thanks, Stephen
Description: Digital signature