Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
-Original Message- From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: 07 Oct 2004 21:02:25 +0100 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Scripsit Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where does it say that mirrors need agreement from end users? And Debian asks end users to agree to stuff all the time. No. On the contrary, Debian is careful not to ask anybody to agree to anything. I don't really follow this. Take the Linux kernel for example. It is something that most Debian users use, and is shipped by Debian. It is licensed under the GNU GPL. If users didn't agree to be bound by the GNU GPL, they wouldn't be allowed to use the Linux kernel. So this might be implicit, but doesn't this mean that Debian asks users to accept and abide by the GPL to use the Linux kernel? Now imagine that Debian was shipping JRockit. It would be licensed to end users under the JRockit EULA. If users didn't agree to be bound by the JRockit EULA, they wouldn't be allowed to use JRockit. How is this different from my above example with the Linux kernel? Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
-Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 15:58:05 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? Because Debian would have signed it, but nobody else would have. Debian would have executed a contract, in which in return for consideration BEA granted a licence to Debian. Nobody else would have received that license. But only Debian would need the re-distribution license agreement, as only Debian is re-distributing (directly and indirectly). No. In a case where Debian disappears tomorrow, can the mirrors continue to distribute? Surely, if Debian's indirectly distributing than the mirrors are directly distributing at the same time. It doesn't have to be one or the other. If Debian disappeared, the mirrors wouldn't be an indirect means of distribution of the Debian JRockit package. Thus, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the JRockit .debs anymore. As long as they are mirroring the official Debian JRockit package, IMO they are an indirect means for Debian to distribute JRockit, and are thus covered by the re-distribution license agreement. Why would anybody else need a license because Debian is re-distributing? For example, Download.com have signed a re-distribution agreement. Are you saying this means all Windows users would have to sign one as well? Yes. As 2.1 says, ...for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. If Download.com is distributing this software without getting end users to sign something, then they are in violation of the license they signed. The license says that end users have to agree to be bound by the EULA, not that they have to sign it. According to my (admittedly quite weak) understanding of copyright law, the alternative to agree to the EULA is the default license which says hands off basically. What if it has significant modifications to Debian Main, and so isn't just a mirror. What if it's a mirror of just Debian non-free? Just the .deb for this package? The only thing this license agreement touches is Debian's distribution of the JRockit .debs. IMO, if a mirror mirrors only the JRockit Debian package that would be an indirect means for Debian to distribute JRockit. What other things are being mirrored as well lies outside the JRockit redistribution agreement. Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
-Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 11:31:12 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: -Original Message- In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? Because Debian would have signed it, but nobody else would have. Debian would have executed a contract, in which in return for consideration BEA granted a licence to Debian. Nobody else would have received that license. But only Debian would need the re-distribution license agreement, as only Debian is re-distributing (directly and indirectly). Why would anybody else need a license because Debian is re-distributing? For example, Download.com have signed a re-distribution agreement. Are you saying this means all Windows users would have to sign one as well? [...] But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. By section 2.1, mirrors wouldn't have a problem: 2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. Nope. Mirrors don't get agreement from end users, and Debian has no interest in forcing end users to agree to anything. Where does it say that mirrors need agreement from end users? And Debian asks end users to agree to stuff all the time. This list is all about what Debian asks end users to agree to, why would JRockit be different in this respect from anything else? Mirrors are also not merely distributors -- consider some Mirror shipping this software in one place and some sort of Value-Added Solution in another. How would that make a mirror something other than an indirect means of distribution for Debian? Mirrors would be covered by indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors. Forkers would have to sign their own redistribution agreement. I'll wait with covering end-users until I understand why it would be required to let them re-distribute :-). What if an end-user starts up his own mirror? Not all the mirrors are registered with Debian. For example, many colleges and companies run private Debian mirrors, distributing only to their students or employees. Why would this make them not be an indirect means of distribtion for Debian? They are obviously distributing Debian (making them distributors), and they aren't directly Debian (making them indirect distributors). Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
JRockit in non-free, part II
I'm unforturnately unable to post the license agreement in text format to either this list or to the RFP; it seems as if it gets eaten by a spam-filter along the way. I've contacted the listmaster though, so we'll see what happens. In the mean time I'll be happy to send my textified version off-line to anybody who's interested. Also, I'm now subscribing to debian-legal, so I'll be able to reply properly in-thread. Anyway, until I manage to post the license agreement I'd like to answer some of the (other) concerns I've seen. First of all, if the re-distribution terms aren't satisfactory in some respect the terms can probably be negotiated. I'm working for BEA, and I know that BEA would like to have JRockit more widely distributed. Note that I'm not the one deciding on these terms, but if debian-legal can decide upon things that need to be changed before JRockit can go into non-free, I can pass that on. I don't think there's a problem with the value added solution(s) that is supposed to be service(s) which Distributor must bundle with the Software. The clause sounds a bit useless, but even though non-free isn't bundled with Debian, non-free is still a service provided to users of Debian. The service being that it's a lot easier for Debian users to install stuff from non-free than to get it from somewhere else. As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. This would be the package maintainer. The mirroring network is covered by paragraph 2.1: distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, so they don't need to sign anything. Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper? I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute, forbidding end-users to re-distribute was more of a nuisance to the end-users than a show-stopper for JRockit going into non-free. Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
But wouldn't that be covered by paragraph 2.1? 2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. Shouldn't the mirrorers be covered by the phrase indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors? //Johan -Original Message- From: Jacobo Tarrio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:35:28 +0200 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II O Mércores, 6 de Outubro de 2004 ás 04:24:31 -0700, Johan Walles escribía: Also, since I'm really unsure about what the requirements actually are to get into non-free, is the EULA forbidding re-distribution a show-stopper? I guessed that as long as Debian was allowed to redistribute, forbidding end-users to re-distribute was more of a nuisance to the end-users than a show-stopper for JRockit going into non-free. It is, since it's not Debian who is doing the redistribution, but the ftpmasters of the mirror sites who choose to carry non-free. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
AFAIU, this could be a show-stopper. I'm working on having the EULA changed, but I'll have to get back to you if / when this happens. //Johan -Original Message- From: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: 06 Oct 2004 14:54:10 +0100 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Scripsit Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. There is no such thing - Debian is not a legal entity, so nobody is qualified to sign legal stuff on its behalf. -- Henning MakholmVi skal nok ikke begynde at undervise hinanden i den store regnekunst her, men jeg vil foreslå, at vi fra Kulturministeriets side sørger for at fremsende tallene og også give en beskrivelse af, hvordan man læser tallene. Tak for i dag! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
-Original Message- From: Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 10:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II In any case, that would create a Debian-specific license, which isn't even enough for non-free. Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand why this would be so? [...] But that's a pretty basic requirement even for non-free: that Debian, its mirrors, users, and forkers be able to distribute code. By section 2.1, mirrors wouldn't have a problem: 2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii) sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree to be bound by an End User Agreement. Mirrors would be covered by indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors. Forkers would have to sign their own redistribution agreement. I'll wait with covering end-users until I understand why it would be required to let them re-distribute :-). Regards //Johan -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
Re: JRockit in non-free, part II
Gotcha. Looks like a show-stopper to me. //Johan -Original Message- From: Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Sent: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:59:28 + Subject: Re: JRockit in non-free, part II Johan Walles [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for the signing, that only has to be done by one Debian representative. This would be the package maintainer. The mirroring network is covered by paragraph 2.1: distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly through multiple tiers of distributors, so they don't need to sign anything. Quoth the Policy, section 2.3: We reserve the right to restrict files from being included anywhere in our archives if * their use or distribution would break a law, * there is an ethical conflict in their distribution or use, * we would have to sign a license for them, or * their distribution would conflict with other project policies. -- Mailblocks - A Better Way to Do Email http://about.mailblocks.com/info
