Re: Against DRM 2.0
First and foremost, please stop top posting. We Are here to hold discussions about licencing, and it's very difficult to do so when your comments are wholy separated from the context in which they belong. You also should stop using HTML; a gmail account or similar should enable you to do this if you can't find a real e-mail account. On Sat, 20 May 2006, Max Brown wrote: The license does not treat software: you cannot value the license on the basis of Debian Free Software Guidelines. ;-) If we're going to distribute it in Debian, it's software. If we're not going to distribute it in Debian, then you can call it whatever you want but it's completely off topic for this list. However, where can I read that Debian requires *everything*, not just software, to be DFSG-free?? Debian requires everything that we distribute to be Free. See Social Contract Clause One:[1] 1. Debian will remain 100% free We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. If we're not going to distribute it, then it's not part of Debian and this list is not the right place to discuss it. Don Armstrong 1: /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt or http://debian.org/social_contract -- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:17:52PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I'm afraid I have more interesting things to do than helping non-free software developers to get their non-free crap in the non-free archive. Good, but you shouldn't decide what others have to do. Some people are interested in java in non-free, it's not your job to try to forbid them to work on that. Raphael, please calm down. nobody is trying to forbid people to work on Java in non-free. Everyone likes Java in non-free IF the license is okay. What people have a problem with is a bad looking decision done by just a few people some of whom don't even speak up in this discussion. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they* are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at all. They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random opinions on this decision *don't* matter. Whow! Now that really hist me hard. First of al would you please explain why it hurts only ftpadmins and not the project? If Sun was to sue someone they certainly sue the project and not a single representative. Second if Debian is no democracy what else is it??? Third we are not talking about random opinions but about an opinion shared by a lot of people. And it still doesn't count? This is not the project I used to work for for so long. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 05:03:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the Who should sue ftpmasters? ftpmasters for lack of transparency here instead of trying to support them to make good decisions. How can we support them? I'd really like to know. After all this decision was made behind closed doors for reasons that might be valid or not. But how can you help someone if you don't know he needs help? Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
To all, for who freedom is important!
To all, for who freedom is important! You, who is sitting in front of your monitors! Everyone, who is reading these lines! You can just look through them or you can read each word thoroughly. It doesn’t matter in which language you are reading these words. Just read them. Think. Make up your mind for yourself only. Because that is what freedom is. Every day you do something that makes this world change. It is not the same it was yesterday and it is not the same it will be tomorrow. Noone knows how many people in the world believe in OpenSource. Something makes me think that our community is the largest and the most cooperative in the world! Why not unite? If we try, we can upend the world. People have always get out to the streets to show themselves, to tell their ideas, but it has never happened in the GLOBAL SCALE! Just imagine: the same day, the same hour, in every city of every country all people get out to the streets! What do I suggest? May, 27. Saturday. Midday. 12.00. Come to the place in your city where meetings usually take place. If you don’t know where to come, go to the administrative buildings where the government is. Just have a walk. You will probably meet some of your acquaintances or friends, and also those people you have never seen. All those for who OpenSource is not just a sound, will be there. Those, who managed to find 30 minutes of their free time to support others. To come together with the whole planet. When you will say hello to each other, smile and talk, know, that somewhere someone came to the same place in their city together with you. Let’s show the world, how many of us are there! The planet is big. The midday will come in different time in each place. At first it will happen in the East, then in the West. The time will come when somewhere people will come together. Even if I will be the only one to come in my city, I will know that somewhere there are people who will come together with me. We can show, how many of us are there. How many of those, who want to make the world a better place. Let’s do it! We will be together! The future depends on us! Please translate this text to any language you know and send it to those who can join us! V.R.M.
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Indeed, they will bear the *primary* liability. However if legal action is taken against them or our mirror operators because of their decision, the whole distribution process might suffer, affecting all developers and users. Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the ftpmasters for lack of transparency here instead of trying to support them to make good decisions. Actually, the ftpmasters are unlikely to get sued, simply because they probably don't have that much money. It is much more likely that companies sponsoring parts of the mirror network would get sued (e.g. Brainfood). That puts a heavy burden upon the ftpmasters. Announcing an ITP and referring questionable licenses to debian-legal relieves some of that burden, because then the license is subjected to far greater analysis by a larger group of people. Since the ftpmasters decided not to do that, it is appropriate to complain about their ineptness in analysing the license. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : This is the whole point of the discussion. Not that I can see. Your preceding post focused on the *who* and the *how* of the decision, *not* on the what. This is all entangled. Had this decision been taken in a transparent way and respecting the way the project works, I would have respected it. Er, of course we all might be affected by it, but the ftpmasters would be affected *way* more by getting sued than *we* would be affected by their getting sued, so I think it's ridiculously presumptuous to criticize the ftpmasters for lack of transparency here instead of trying to support them to make good decisions. Support them for what? Michael already answered to this question. No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you* say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do in this thread. They are the ones to tell other people what to do in general. They are the ones rejecting new maintainers or new packages for frivolous reasons. They are the ones preventing me from working on GNOME 2.14 because packages are stuck in NEW. They are generally considering the rest of developers like a boss with his employees. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you* say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do in this thread. They are the ones to tell other people what to do in general. They are the ones rejecting new maintainers or new packages for frivolous reasons. They are the ones preventing me from working on GNOME 2.14 because packages are stuck in NEW. Oh, quit whining already. First, the FTP-masters is not the same group of people as the DAMs. There is some overlap, but it is not complete. Ignoring that, I've never seen the DAM reject new maintainers for frivolous reasons. More on topic, I've also never seen packages rejected because of frivolous reasons. What I have seen is a NEW FAQ which clearly explains the reasons for which a package might be rejected. None of them seem frivolous to me; in fact, if it were up to me, I'd be a bit more strict than what that FAQ seems to suggest. Second, the NEW queue is indeed a bit backlogged; AIUI, however, that's mainly because the ftp-masters were at debconf and the Internet connection there wasn't good enough for interactive traffic, which is required for ftp-mastery stuff. Debconf is over now, so I fully expect the NEW queue to be handled again as good as it used to be in a few weeks. Which would hopefully mean that emile, a package that I uploaded and which is stuck in NEW as well, will be accepted into the archive. They are generally considering the rest of developers like a boss with his employees. I've never seen any of them ordering me to do something, which is the essence of an employer/employee-relationship. You must be delusional. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My prior action would still get me sued, doesn't it? And no, just saying I thought it was okay, doesn't help me either. I don't think the parallel with warez is sound. Allow me to reword to better match the situation at hand. You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their software on your server. They reaffirm that you can, even in person. You offer it on your server. The programmer changes his mind and commands you to remove it, which you subsequently do. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 5/22/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Given the word estoppel only has meaning in jurisdictions deriving from English common law, I think it'd be silly to assume it works the way you think it does in any of the other jurisdictions Debian or any of its mirrors may come in contact with... In the other jurisdictions that you're familiar with, is there any similar principal where if you make a recorded public statement that something is okay, you cannot then later sue someone for doing what you said was okay? Well, IANAL, but as far as I can see, as long as Sun has a valid reason to change their mind and is willing to compensate any losses caused by them changing their mind, they can do whatever they like. A few possible problems are: - The promise was made without consideration (no symbolic one cent payment) - The promise was not formally notarised. A press notice may not count. - It wouldn't damage Debian or anybody much to revoke the statement. They may not be able to recover damges for the period you relied on their statement, but nothing prevents them from stating the contrary. that's assume the promise is considered valid ofcourse. A comparison of estoppel between English, American and German. It refers to contracts however, we we don't have in this case: http://tldb.uni-koeln.de/php/pub_show_document.php?pubdocid=114700 Thie simplest solution in this case would be if Sun simply attached the FAQ as an addendum to the licence rather than stating it's not legally binding. -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
Re: Revised Bacula license
Kern Sibbald wrote: John Goerzen wrote: Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look and it looks good to me. This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. [...] Certain parts of the Bacula software are licensed by their copyright holder(s) under the GPL with no modifications. These software files are clearly marked as such. If those parts don't carry the exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, then Bacula as a whole does not have an exception for non-GPLed libraries such as OpenSSL, so distribution linked to OpenSSL would violate the GPL on those portions without the exception. This doesn't make Bacula non-free, but it does make it impossible to distribute Bacula compiled to use OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries. Yes, I understood that. I added that clause at José's request to satisfy a Debian requirement, and if it is not really needed or no longer needed by Debian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you mention. At the same time, it made me realize that I don't have full control over certain sections of the code copyrighted by other people. If you link to OpenSSL or similarly-incompatible libraries, you definitely need such an exception, on all the GPLed code in Bacula; Debian doesn't require this, the GPL itself does. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit : And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even if I ask, but instead people are just told to shut up. Even people in Oaxtepec have learnt that Java thing by reading the mailing lists. This is even more frustrating when the people who took this decision are a few meters away. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 21:16 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : I find it very sad that people can get this impression after coming to Debconf. Realize that sometimes in e-mail it is difficult to convey subtlety or nuanced meaning. Even though my experience with Debian is only three years old I have found there is a great deal of elegance and sophistication in Debian technology. My point here is that I have developed the impression that Debian is more than technology... This is getting more and more true, and this is the point I find sad. And I'm little surprised that you address me in the third person. Well, there are many people on mailing lists who just disregard people using the second person. You may recall that as I was struggling to convert a video with transcode you showed me how to do it easily with ffmpeg. I appreciated your help with that technical question. I would really appreciate your help with this more profound question of what is the essence of Debian? The essence of Debian should be free software and technical excellence. I am afraid this is no more a priority for many of us. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Heya, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Java flamewar] DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special treatment? Isn't this a discrimination against all other packages? :-) ACK. This is the most important problem with the Java license for me - in general, the ftp-masters are *very* strict when it comes to licenses. Even if upstream provides some FAQ or something to clarify badly worded parts of the license, they are usually required to change the license of their software to get it into Debian. I understand that a lot of people are interested to get Sun Java packaged for Debian (and it would be a real improvement if we were able to distribute it!), but I can not understand why it is special-cased when it comes to licensing issues. If Sun is interested in getting Java included in the major Linux distributions, it shouldn't be such a big problem to provide a license draft, hear opinions and then *change* it. In his mail, aj said both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay - that's nice. If the license wasn't public at that point, it shouldn't have been too hard to change the problematic clauses of the license to say what they mean. As far as I understand the whole thing, Sun simply provided their license, but was not willing to address the concerns that were expressed in the license itself. It simply doesn't look like this was a fair process with the aim of getting to a solution that satisfies both parties. Which is not really helping to ensure that Sun will not try to do bad stuff at some time in the future. So at the moment, we have a license with some ambiguous clauses, a lot of unhappy DDs and Java on those mirrors that provide non-free. I don't think that removing the packages again is the right signal to send out, but I think that we should work these problems out before etch is released. OK, now to the reason for CCing aj: Could you please delegate someone to do a status report, talk to Sun and then report back to project? I can understand that for a big corporation like Sun, it's not easy to work together with a many-headed hydra like debian(-legal), so this could help to get to a solution in a reasonable time-frame. To calm everyone down, it would probably good to choose someone for this who was *not* involved in this cute little flamewar we're all enjoying so much. Ignoring the concerns of the developers who are frustrated by the whole thing will not help anyone, but those people should please remember that we're trying to create the best Linux distribution *together*. Flaming is usually not the best way to present one's arguments. Thanks, Marc (hating legal stuff and flamewars in general) -- BOFH #431: Borg implants are failing pgpdJT38GisFI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Tom Marble [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Debian is so important to you then why do you stop at saying that I am mistaken instead of going on to educate me on a project you care so much about? Some Debian Developers (DDs) are essentially mercenary. Others are also troubled by the events of debconf described in http://debconf6.debconf.org/blog/2006/05/19#removal_of_attendee http://reactor-core.org/%7Edjw/myblog/archives/2006/05/18/T22_36_05/ Yet more weren't at debconf or don't see debian as a social org that interests them - I've no idea whether any applies here. [...] And I'm little surprised that you address me in the third person. Personal messages should not be sent to mailing lists. I'm a little surprised that debian-legal was cc'd on a personal reply. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Revised Bacula license
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] forwarded: Linking: Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietary and freely available to the public. Licence proliferation suggestion: use something similar to the FSF's OpenSSL permission. Here is one from Wget I have here: In addition, as a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission to link the code of its release of Wget with the OpenSSL project's OpenSSL library (or with modified versions of it that use the same license as the OpenSSL library), and distribute the linked executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all of the code used other than OpenSSL. If you modify this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Not that I think yours is bad, but I think this could be combined with others using the same phrasing more easily. +1 to comments about non-OpenSSL-permitting code uncertainty. Thanks, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 21:16 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : sophistication in Debian technology. My point here is that I have developed the impression that Debian is more than technology... This is getting more and more true, and this is the point I find sad. [...] The essence of Debian should be free software and technical excellence. I am afraid this is no more a priority for many of us. I don't see the contradiction here. For me, Debian is about free software and technical excellence. But it would be *really* boring to do the work alone. And it would also be much less interesting to do the work in a company with traditional organization. Therefore, the fact that Debian is a social entity, too, with a particular culture, contributes to my motivation to work for it. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] license agreement; and (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. [...] When did we decide, as a community, to defend and indemnify Sun for the community's mistakes in packaging Sun's implementation of Java the language and platform? Actually, it looks worse than that to me: your Operating System, or any part thereof - That is all the parts, not just the Sun Java packages, but stuff like GNU tools and Linux, so long as they weren't modified after our Operating System distribution. I'm not sure whoever drafted DLJ really understood what a distribution is - software packaged in a handy ready-to-eat format. We didn't write the whole Operating System. Distributor License for Java version 1.1 licensed packages should be removed from non-free immediately. Then the normal process for inclusion of packages into the archive can begin. Amen. (Disclosure: I used to help hack Java code (badly) but I don't mirror, support or use non-free, so my interest is limited.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by removing java! Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. Not even remotely relevant. The difference would be that while you would act against the original author's wishes if you were to put warez on your server, the same isn't true about Sun Java. In fact, Sun explicitely asked us to please distribute their software. I'd say that accounts to something, and that a Judge who feels different isn't worth his job. Consider Sun would turn nasty and would try to use their Java distributor's license against us. What do you think would happen? * Sun tells us remove Sun Java from your server, now! * We comply * End of story. What's the problem? They won't sue us for distributing Java. If they do, all we have to do is point the Judge to the press coverage of this change of license, and to the fact that Debian was mentioned as one of the distributors asked to please distribute Java. They won't have a case. Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which we could be sued and lose a case in relation to this license. Do you? Sure, the license isn't Free Software. It would be nice if it were; and I'm sure that Sun Java won't be part of main until it is. But apart from that, I really don't understand what the big fuss is all about. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:03:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit : And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even if I ask, but instead people are just told to shut up. Even people in Oaxtepec have learnt that Java thing by reading the mailing lists. Err, that's not actually true. It was announced at the end of one particular talk. Even I saw that through the webcast. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:22:25AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: Heya, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Java flamewar] DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special treatment? Isn't this a discrimination against all other packages? :-) ACK. This is the most important problem with the Java license for me - in general, the ftp-masters are *very* strict when it comes to licenses. Even if upstream provides some FAQ or something to clarify badly worded parts of the license, they are usually required to change the license of their software to get it into Debian. I understand that a lot of people are interested to get Sun Java packaged for Debian (and it would be a real improvement if we were able to distribute it!), but I can not understand why it is special-cased when it comes to licensing issues. I hope this special treatment has nothing to do with the sun-ubuntu deal announced a few days ago. - Alexander -- GPG messages preferred.| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** Alexander Sack | : :' : The universal [EMAIL PROTECTED]| `. `' Operating System http://www.asoftsite.org/ | `-http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not allowed to offer it. Then you offer it on your server and some of your customers has a huge problem with that software and wants to sue someone to cover their losses. Now the company that developed the software says you were never allowed to offer it and with their own version your customer wouldn't have got into trouble. I don't think they'd be able to make a case with that, unless they can prove that we seriously tampered with their software and that our version is totally different from theirs. Since they've been doing most of the packaging work themselves, I think that's going to be very, *very* hard. If I ask you to please do something, I can't then suddenly turn around and say that you shouln't have actually been doing that something. That would be dishonest, and I can't win a case in court by being dishonest. Well, is there a shiny piece of paper, or verifiable gpg signed message, or anything else actually tangable that could be taken to court that says this guy there said it was OK? See I'm talking about a legal problem that isn't solvable by just removing software. No you're not. You're talking about an issue that only exists in fantasy. I think that you're missing the word currently in that sentence. Cheers, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: The difference would be that while you would act against the original author's wishes if you were to put warez on your server, the same isn't true about Sun Java. In fact, Sun explicitely asked us to please distribute their software. I'd say that accounts to something, and that a Judge who feels different isn't worth his job. I already admitted that the example doesn't cut it. But again most discussion is about the allowance to distribute. I don't see a problem with this. But I see a problem with the idemnify clause. That's why I tried this example because it doesn't help if you stop distributing java if you are already in a bind to idemnify Sun. Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which we could be sued and lose a case in relation to this license. Do you? Yes, I do, but not for distributing it. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray a écrit : [...] A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) language! Java? is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. - -- Arnaud Vandyck, STE fi, ULg Formateur Cellule Programmation. Java Trap: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEceY34vzFZu62tMIRAhIBAJ9V4KCUXK/T9tnbamzmT/kK496V+QCeLoOg G3m4rBxbMokjUR46sYFVu6Y= =4NHo -END PGP SIGNATURE- begin:vcard fn:Arnaud Vandyck n:Vandyck;Arnaud org;quoted-printable:Universit=C3=A9 de Li=C3=A8ge;STE-Formations Informatiques adr;quoted-printable;quoted-printable;quoted-printable:B=C3=A2timent C1;;Rue Armand St=C3=A9vard, 2;Li=C3=A8ge;;4000;Belgique email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title;quoted-printable:Attach=C3=A9 (formateur) tel;work:+32 4 366 90 55 tel;fax:+32 4 366 90 59 tel;home:+32 4 349 09 69 tel;cell:+32 486 31 10 47 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.ste.fapse.ulg.ac.be/ version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:34:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they* are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at all. They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random opinions on this decision *don't* matter. Whow! Now that really hist me hard. First of al would you please explain why it hurts only ftpadmins and not the project? If Sun was to sue someone they certainly sue the project and not a single representative. The project is not a legal entity. Sun might try to sue, in approximate descending order of relevance: - SPI, Inc. - the mirror operators/sponsors - the ftpmasters - the SPI officers - the package maintainer other Debian developers don't have any reason to worry about their own liability here, but the ftpmasters definitely *do*, particularly as mirror operators and SPI could turn around and sue them for negligence. Yes, we all have a fair bit to lose in a worst-case scenario where Sun sues and wins SPI's assets, including the Debian trademarks, copyrights, and bank accounts; or causes us to lose key mirrors because the sponsors deem they can no longer afford a relationship with us. But whereas most of us are then free to go our own ways and create DebianPlusPlus, ftpmasters also run the risk of winding up in court personally. Second if Debian is no democracy what else is it??? A meritocracy^Wtheocracy^Wtechnocracy? On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:36:55AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: ftpmasters for lack of transparency here instead of trying to support them to make good decisions. How can we support them? I'd really like to know. After all this decision was made behind closed doors for reasons that might be valid or not. But how can you help someone if you don't know he needs help? Some people in this thread seem to think the ftpmasters need help, but aren't being particularly helpful. Civilly pointing out possible problems with the license that may have been overlooked is potentially helpful; complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't... -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: By reading your email, I feel you are acknowledging the fact the ftp-masters cabal (I can't name it otherwise after seeing their behavior IRL) is treating other developers as second-class contributors who should just do as they say. Actually, Josselin, in this regard you are second-class, by simple virtue of not being an FTP master. Just like I don't get to dictate how GNOME gets packaged in Debian, and you don't get to dictate how X gets developed in Debian, without the aid of a GR: the ultimate tool of democracy. Hope that helps, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, 21 May 2006 15:55:53 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random opinions on this decision *don't* matter. What is it, then? A constitutional monarchy? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) .. Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgplKcJGKNSRn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk
A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) language! Java? is a trademark of Sun Microsystems. There are already many free packages that provide a binary (or symlink to a binary) named java. There is one package named 'free-java-sdk' which uses the name java, as well as the previously mentioned virtual packages which we already have. It seems reasonable to continue to use the word java in the virtual packages which provide binaries named java. Charles -- On a highway ad He spied it Bought a jar Now glad he Tried it Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1938/on_a_highway signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Against DRM 2.0
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that DRM-inhibiting licences are possible, but the s/are/that follow the DFSG are/ #oops! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sharpmusique in Debian
Hi, Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that multiple .deb packages already exist? Charles -- Our fortune Is your Shaven face It's our best Advertising space Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/our_fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Distributor License for Java: External Commentary
Hi all, Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems: JDK on GNU/Linux: Something Wonderful 16 May 2006 http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=jdk_on_gnu_linux_something Responds that it's OK to distribute along with GCJ, GNU/Classpath and so on - that was one of the explicit intents of the new license as that was previously the chief obstacle to distribution with GNU/Linux. No response to this confused question by Mike Norman: I am still a bit confused by clause 2(f). How about a 'ferinstance'? I am a member of my local JUG and LUG - if we wanted to create a custom Linux distribution (we did so 2 years ago) and include Sun's JDK under the 'JDK Distros Community' License, will either or both of the User Groups be indemnified (sp?) by that clause? The total $$ budget for both groups is ~$900 CDN so we can't afford to ask a lawyer for advice. Simon, you've got lawyers (hmm, sounds sorta like you've got mail!) - can you ask 'em? Commentary by Dalibor Topic: The license is, frankly, still pretty bad, and contains various nasty clauses: from the overly broad indemnification(i) part, which has nothing to do with Sun's JDK software, to the subsettig restrictions not being limited to Sun's software. That's from a cursory glance, I think you'll get to see more comments once people take it apart, and the JavaOne buzz is gone --//-- Michael Koch, Debian Developer Debian Java packages group member SUN JDK in Debian non-free 22 May 2006 http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary-man-di//index.php?p=31 Noone of the Debian Java maintainers group was really involved in the inclusion of SUN JDK in non-free. Noone from the team wants to really put much effort into closed source Java. I dont speak about closing bugs. I mean answering questions in the IRC channel or on the mailing list. People need help with everything from setting JAVA_HOME environment variable correctly to setting up running a bigger application with a runtime. As I see it. SUN JDK will only rot in our archive. Noone likes it. FTP-Master put work on our shoulders but we don’t do it. It would have been great if FTP-Master would have contact us to clear the situation before doing any blindfold action. --//-- Pierre Habouzit, Debian Developer The whole java/non-free affair 23 May 2006 http://blog.madism.org/index.php/2006/05/23/87-the-whole-java-non-free-affair Summary and questions. One question is prefaced with I don't want to ask, or more precisely I don't want/fear to read the answer to: why does this come 1 week after that ubuntu made it clear they had some things going on with Sun ? In solely general terms, what is it about the nature of this question that makes it so inflammatory/fearsome? These and future blogs by Debian developers are accessible from http://planet.debian.net/. --//-- Java becomes more distributable http://lwn.net/Articles/184066/ ([Front] Posted May 17, 2006 17:31 UTC (Wed) by corbet) With a great deal of fanfare, Sun Microsystems used its podium at JavaOne to announce a change in the Java licensing terms intended to make it easier for distributors to ship Sun's Java implementation. LWN has taken a look at the new license for Java, and written up some first impressions; Available without subscription on 25 May 2006. I'm looking forward to reading it. Regards, Adam -- [For my future reference here's my last post to debian-devel: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/05/msg02376.html]
