Re: Sun Java available from non-free
David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Out of interest, if[0] that is saying that we agree that anything isn't Sun's fault isn't Sun's fault (which is fair enough) then that doesn't mention anything about any warranty that we might offer. For the large majority of the software we ship, we disclaim any warranty what so ever. However, the DLJ seeks to prevail over all other agreements, including those disclaimers of warranty. Can we not just disclaim all warranty on Sun's java like we do with the rest of our software, or is there something in the license that forces us to give a warranty? The problem isn't Sun's java. It's the requirement to give indemnity covering *everything* in the Operating System. In fact, Sun's java may be the only thing not affected by this! Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu 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 Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit the same flaw; so even if we allowed the bug to slip in, it's not really our fault. Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. -- 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
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. Changes to debian are made under debian's control (in theory). The reason I raised the indemnity in particular is that the FAQ does not contradict this concern, so all the should we ignore the FAQ debate didn't affect it. Quoth the FAQ: | 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. You *are* indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes to your OS whose inclusion you control. It's only downstream changes that are excluded, not upstream. (AIUI, Gentoo can avoid this neatly, with its users' install commands rebuilding the OS.) Do you agree, or what have I missed? Regards, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu 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 Jun 08, 2006 at 12:19, MJ Ray praised the llamas by saying: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license. Changes to debian are made under debian's control (in theory). The reason I raised the indemnity in particular is that the FAQ does not contradict this concern, so all the should we ignore the FAQ debate didn't affect it. Quoth the FAQ: | 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. You *are* indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes to your OS whose inclusion you control. It's only downstream changes that are excluded, not upstream. (AIUI, Gentoo can avoid this neatly, with its users' install commands rebuilding the OS.) Out of interest, if[0] that is saying that we agree that anything isn't Sun's fault isn't Sun's fault (which is fair enough) then that doesn't mention anything about any warranty that we might offer. For the large majority of the software we ship, we disclaim any warranty what so ever. Can we not just disclaim all warranty on Sun's java like we do with the rest of our software, or is there something in the license that forces us to give a warranty? [0] I'm going by MJ's comments. I haven't had chance to check the actual license, so take this as a curious question from someone interested to know the answer. Do you agree, or what have I missed? Regards, -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote: On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers. The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there is absolutely no accountability for anyone on debian-legal -- anyone, developer or not, who agrees with the social contract or not, can reply to queries raised on this list with their own opinion. If people have weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, that's entirely their choice. and I'm really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly. We do not indemnify Sun for any actions Sun takes. DLJ version 1.1 says that you do not indemnify (2f) Sun only in the case of: 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. If the Software README file permits certain files to be replaced or omitted from your distribution, then any such replacement(s) or omission(s) shall not be considered a breach of Section 2(a). It will be sanesafe to arrange notarised that if Sun thinks there is a license breach then the only actions that could be performed against Debian and its legal entities are the removal of the software from the official Debian archive. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm They do not need to. No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other directions in debian policy, but it's usually seen as good practice and developers usually take a dim view of such needless problem-making. really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly. They do not need too. That doesn't change my surprise at them going off at half-cock about such a weighty responsibility. [...] -legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely debian-legal is just a mailing list and does not hold beliefs. FWIW, I agree. Anthony Towns was personifying it in the section to which I replied and I wished to make my point in similar language. I didn't notice anyone correcting his original post when I wrote that. Actually, I still can't see such a correction. Maybe, just maybe, the meaning was bleeding obvious to everyone else. -- 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
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20 That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there is absolutely no accountability for anyone on debian-legal Whoa. That's not true. There are delegates on debian-legal, delegated to handle particular -legal matters, as well as various maintainers and co-maintainers, who are all accountable to debian in their field. It's a marginal point, but it's not helpful to introduce broad false statements like that and suggest -legal is entirely non-DD. [...] If people have weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, that's entirely their choice. Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's entirely my choice how to respond to that. Everyone happy with that? [...] As far as I've seen most of -legal would have taken the same attitude you have -- there's already working java in main, I don't use non-free anyway, found a few token problems and stopped helping Sun at all. As previously posted, my motives are more complex. I think it's interesting that only those two were repeated. I disagree that the problems are token ones and I don't have much incentive to help Sun: I'm not motivated by getting in their PR puffs and the DDs who support Sun seem very belligerent and unwilling to consider bugs. [...] So, I don't think any reasonable person would prefer Sun's FAQ or emails when they aren't clearly explaining particular terms in an obvious way. If you want to dismiss the people who disagree with you, including myself, as unreasonable, then there's not really any point having this conversation. I don't dismiss them. I don't understand how such reasoning could work. If you want to dismiss people who disagree with you as pointless, then it shows a shameful lack of ability to explain and mediate. Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable for the effects of everything in our operating system? If you're actually claiming that's what it does, then I guess there is. Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct PS: apologies for the odd register in one paragraph. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] If people have weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, that's entirely their choice. Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's entirely my choice how to respond to that. Everyone happy with that? Yes, but policy is generally sensible, edited by DDs, and each change is carefully vetted. debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'. It is mandated that all Debian packages follow policy. It is no more mandated that developers run everything past -legal, than that they run every change they make past #debian-devel. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] [snip] 4. there's already working java in main; and Partly/somewhat/mostly working. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhgQZS9HxQb37XmcRAvFaAKDC2niBaDpsJbiwvX0QA9utJhcQSACfe28j cMK8+C6xO+LJMurbMbuiUDE= =xO9I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable for the effects of everything in our operating system? If you're actually claiming that's what it does, then I guess there is. Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? I could imagine a situation where compiler bugs would make an application misbehave, but that doesn't apply to a binary-only non-free piece of code. I could imagine a situation where library ABI changes break the application in such a way that it would no longer even _start_, but I can hardly imagine that people would want to sue anyone over that -- unless suddenly java would no longer start while they're running stable, but I don't foresee that ABI changes happening in stable (do you?) I could imagine a bug in glibc having an effect on every application which tries to make use of the particular buggy library call. What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there; and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like: the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner directly into the license ? And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that ? Upsteam ? [1] (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. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but suggested by the Developer's Reference. Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this. An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy s2.3. It is a direct instruction, not a 'should' like asking debian-legal for advice about approaching licensors. I think the length of the FAQ (and this thread!) shows this one's doubtful. -- 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 Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:34 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? That has actually happened before with Sun's Java on Linux at least once. Back when glibc switched NPTL, Sun's JVM became very unstable. I'd be surprised if a build of Sun's JVM back then would have passed Sun's proprietary compatibility test suite (i.e. behaved as documented) on a NPTL-ed glibc without some nudging in form of LD_KERNEL_ASSUME etc. See http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do;:YfiG?bug_id=4885046 for a particular instance of the problem. If you search Sun's bug database/the web, you should be able to see more instances. cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, it doesn't say that: it says If in doubt, send mail to -legal. It doesn't say if the license is doubtful, which is a different matter entirely. We've been told both James and Jeroen extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. [Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] It looks like someone involved was in doubt, and ignored a good instruction in debian-policy. Debian should not rely on legal advice from the licensor, especially when the licence clearly says it prevails over other communication from them. Obtain it and review that advice, yes, but not rely upon it. I look forward to the end of language lawyering by the usual culprits and the start of a discussion of how better to avoid these problems in future. -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu 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 Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there; and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. While some people cannot imagine that a contract will be enforced as written, judges can. While some people think that it would seem that an exception exists where none is written, judges don't. While some people think that it can reasonably be argued that a contract doesn't mean what it says, judges don't. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like: the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner directly into the license? I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say 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. If it didn't, you had a point. As it is, you don't. And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam? That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the stuff for which we are not directly responsible. Debian can argue that it is not responsible for software not in Debian archives. However, all software in Debian archives is signed in by a DD, a member of Debian's web of trust. A new upstream bug does not affect Debian until Debian is changed by the DD's incorporation of the upstream version containing the upstream bug. When that change is signed in to Debian, that is a change to Debian made by and authorised by a DD. At that point, Debian becomes responsible for incorporating the upstream bug into Debian, and Debian becomes responsible for indemnifying Sun. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? Why do I need a case where some other application breaks? The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System, not only for Sun Java. We know that debian has contained buggy software in the past and it's probable that it will in future, despite our best efforts. [...] and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. How does it do that? In general, upstreams are not allowed to change directly what is released as Debian. Ultimately, it's debian developers that decide what modifications are made to the Operating System and are controlled (heh!) and directed by the various project agreements and processes, so I don't see how those modifications are excluded. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. Likewise. I think you're ignoring that the indemnification is broad, while the exclusion is narrow. What do I miss? Feel free to reply to -legal only if you prefer. This doesn't seem like a technical development topic now. -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu 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 Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there; and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like: the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner directly into the license? I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say It does matter in the courts. 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. If it didn't, you had a point. As it is, you don't. I disagreed, look below. And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam? That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the stuff for which we are not directly responsible. It easily could became Our Problem(TM) if the break is caused by patch(es) applied to upstream versions by Debian Developer(s) ? How can you ensure that a break will not happend or in a case of such indemnification wont be more than Sun's removal from the official Debian archives. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Wouter Verhelst writes: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? Why do I need a case where some other application breaks? The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System, not only for Sun Java. Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's sane to allow loonies to sue Sun over stuff they have nothing, but really _nothing_ to do with? Like, some loonie wants to sue us over his FTP server that went berzerk, finds out that Debian doesn't have a lot of money, and then sues Sun because, hey, there's this Java binary in the same Debian which just _happens_ to be owned by Sun? A promise to indemnify Sun would not prevent or limit this tactic. It would instead mean that Debian (whatever entity or entities agreed to that indemnification) would end up paying Sun's legal bills and damages until Debian went bankrupt. The remaining balance would come out of Sun's bank accounts. If Debian has small bank accounts, I don't see how this helps either Debian or Sun. If Debian has large bank accounts, I don't see how this is a good prospective use of the money. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 08:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote: and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. How does it do that? In general, upstreams are not allowed to change directly what is released as Debian. Ultimately, it's debian developers that decide what modifications are made to the Operating System and are controlled (heh!) and directed by the various project agreements and processes, so I don't see how those modifications are excluded. If it occurs everywhere, it could reasonably be argued that either the JDK is buggy, or not tested well enough. Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit the same flaw; so even if we allowed the bug to slip in, it's not really our fault. A reasonable rule of thumb is that if your argument doesn't convince your colleagues then it doesn't stand any hope in court. The judge is going to rule on the license. Nothing else. Now, without legally meaningless FAQs or imaginary judges, please explain why the license is not a problem. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like: the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner directly into the license? I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say It does matter in the courts. No, not at all. The text clearly says that we are to idemnify Sun in for anything anyone could sue them over while doing something involving the use or distribution of (our) Operating System, except if something happened not under (our) direction or control. It doesn't matter that you can quote a part of that statement and say it's too broad! Oh, look!, because if you quote part of it, you're not quoting the entire statement, and your statement isn't complete nor does it reflect the intention of the person who wrote it. That's called basic grammar. We agree that the license text clearly says the Operationg System distributor coulb be held liable for any malfunctions caused to their software which prevent it to operate as expected to. The DLJ license is meant to be for proprietary OS distributors who can guarantee that to a certain extend and are ready to indemnify in case of Bad Thing Happend(TM). Obviously this is nt the case for our operating system. And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam? That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the stuff for which we are not directly responsible. It easily could became Our Problem(TM) if the break is caused by patch(es) applied to upstream versions by Debian Developer(s) ? Well, yeah, but then it really was Our Fault(TM). There's nothing wrong with standing up for the bad things you've done, is there? Right, agreed. That's how it should be. Then Debian glibc and kernel teams(at least) are exposed to be held liable in case of introducing a patch which causes a Sun's java malfunctions. Of course, there _is_ something wrong with standing trial for an honest mistake you've made. But do you think a judge have anyone pay a fine if they made an honest mistake while creating something that shouts NO WARRANTY all over? Remember that both Debian and Java do so. Do you think many people will sue if they know that the product they've been using shouts NO WARRANTY all over the place? I don't eliminate such a possibility, do you ? In fact shouting NO WARRANTY could encaurage lunatics to file frivolous lawsuits for no good reasons. Of course, there'll always be loonies who will sue even if they have no case. And of course, there'll always be judges who will issue a verdict which is crazy and out of touch with everything else. And while we could theoretically try to ensure that never happens to us, I'd rather not go down that road. How can you ensure that a break will not happend or in a case of such indemnification wont be more than Sun's removal from the official Debian archives. I'm sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Could you please reword? I'm sorry... I missed some words ;-) How can you ensure that if Sun's java is found to misbehave because of certain patches applied by Debian Developers to the kernels or glibc versions which Debian distributes, then the worst reaction against Debian is to be forced to remove the Sun's java software from the official Debian archives. Or you believe that if the above mentioned debian developers made a mistake they should be held liable even the whole Debian operating system shouts NO WARRANTY. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm They do not need to. No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other directions in debian policy, Please don't confuse things. The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but suggested by the Developer's Reference. The latter document is a collection of good practices, not a list of things that must be done. The former document is a list of requirements that each and every package must comply to. Failing to follow a requirement set out in policy can result in a serious bug being filed against your package. Failing to follow a guideline from the developer's reference can, at worst, result in people being annoyed by your attitude. -- 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 Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable for the effects of everything in our operating system? If you're actually claiming that's what it does, then I guess there is. Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? I could imagine a situation where compiler bugs would make an application misbehave, but that doesn't apply to a binary-only non-free piece of code. I could imagine a situation where library ABI changes break the application in such a way that it would no longer even _start_, but I can hardly imagine that people would want to sue anyone over that -- unless suddenly java would no longer start while they're running stable, but I don't foresee that ABI changes happening in stable (do you?) I could imagine a bug in glibc having an effect on every application which tries to make use of the particular buggy library call. What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there; and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. -- 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
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Why do I need a case where some other application breaks? The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System, not only for Sun Java. Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's sane to allow loonies to sue Sun over stuff they have nothing, but really _nothing_ to do with? [...] What's wrong with that is that accepting the DLJ is indemnifying Sun against it! It's also not only lawsuits. Reread the DLJ at http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.2.html#dlj and notice what else is included. I don't think it's sane to allow such lawsuits, but I've heard insaner lawsuits from the US in the past. The DLJ does little to stop them. It just seems to cover Sun's wallet. Is it right for free software distributors to cover Sun's wallet? [...] and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. How does it do that? [...] I don't see how those modifications are excluded. If it occurs everywhere, it could reasonably be argued that either the JDK is buggy, or not tested well enough. Accepting the DLJ seems to indemnify Sun about the Operating System, not just the JDK. The JDK's bugginess is largely unimportant. Please don't complicate things by adding JDK bugs to the situation. That's a whole different question, much less clear to me yet. Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit the same flaw; so even if we allowed the bug to slip in, it's not really our fault. Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it? Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu 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
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, not at all. The text clearly says that we are to idemnify Sun in for anything anyone could sue them over while doing something involving the use or distribution of (our) Operating System, except if something happened not under (our) direction or control. It doesn't matter that you can quote a part of that statement and say it's too broad! Oh, look!, because if you quote part of it, you're not quoting the entire statement, and your statement isn't complete nor does it reflect the intention of the person who wrote it. Unfortunately, only modifications under our direction and control can happen to our Operating System, so the exception can't be used as you want, as explained in Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's called basic grammar. I call it pointless pedantry. I've tried it myself in the past and it really doesn't help. You just get stuck at this is ambiguous which never satisfies anyone. [...] But do you think a judge have anyone pay a fine if they made an honest mistake while creating something that shouts NO WARRANTY all over? [...] It's possible, because the licensee must agree that the DLJ prevails over all else (and the DLJ says we indemnify Sun for our Operating System), as in Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please reply to the other messages on these topics, in preference to this. 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: Sun Java available from non-free
Mike Bird writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free): Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal - - a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun. This is obviously not possible. Debian is not a legal entity and can't indemnify anyone. SPI _is_ a legal entity but Debian developers, including the ftpmasters, are not empowered by the SPI Board to indemnify anyone (and if the SPI Board were asked to indemnify anyone we would almost certainly decline - we've done so in the past[1]). Furthermore, none of the ftpmasters or Debian developers have asserted that they speak on behalf of SPI (at least as far as the SPI Board is aware - if they have claimed to speak for SPI then please let us know immediately so that we can clarify the situation). Mirror operators may or may not be violating Sun's licence but if Sun think theire is a violation then they have only to ask and Debian participants (including the mirrors) will desist at once. It's clear that mirror operators aren't indemnifying Sun; they probably haven't even heard about this licence. They might be violating Sun's copyright I suppose but Sun have repeatedly assured us that it's all right so they'll have difficulty if they turn round and try to say otherwise in court. So who, if anyone, might be indemnifying Sun ? Perhaps the Maintainer and perhaps the ftpmasters. Surely that's their personal decision to make. If I were them I would certainly think twice but they're not putting anyone else at risk. Ian. [1] Eg, Debian is not LSB-certified at least in part because the certification agreement would have required SPI to indemnify people against Developers' (and CD resellers!) mistakes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
John Goerzen writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free): Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to indemnify Sun Who is purporting to commit SPI to indemnifying Sun ? AFAICT ftpmasters are indemnifying Sun. This is silly of them but probably not actually fatal. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but suggested by the Developer's Reference. Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this. Right, so I was mistaken. An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy s2.3. No, it doesn't say that: it says If in doubt, send mail to -legal. It doesn't say if the license is doubtful, which is a different matter entirely. -- 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 Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there; and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. If I'm misguided, I'd be happy to be enlightened. But I don't think I am. If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like: the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner directly into the license? I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say 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. If it didn't, you had a point. As it is, you don't. And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam? That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the stuff for which we are not directly responsible. -- 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 Tuesday 06 June 2006 09:00, Mike Bird wrote: Hi Thijs, The DLJ is governed by California law and controlling US federal law [DLJ (14)]. Under the explicit terms [DLJ (14)] and under the parole evidence rule the judge cannot consider anything other than the literal pedantic terms of the contract and subsequent written amendments signed by both parties. Evidence of intent may be introduced where the contract is ambiguous. You have not made any showing that the contract is ambiguous with respect to indemnification, and thus evidence of intent is inadmissible. The personal situations of the parties is inadmissible except where the door is opened by the contract itself or by relevant legislation. You have made no showing that the door has been opened, and thus evidence of personal situations is inadmissible. Judges have broad discretion in some matters: the orderly conduct of proceedings, contempt, evidentiary rulings, ... However judges literally and pedantically follow the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, regulations, licenses, and contracts. If there is any variance from this it is when a party fails to timely raise a relevant point in argument. --Mike Bird Mike, you know all the fancy buzz words, so you're clearly know something on the topic, but you're being a bit too literal with your representations of the way things are. First off, you're applying contract law to a license. Thanks to the Copyright Act the two are not necessary one in the same. There are a host of equitable principles that must be considered when considering a license. Second, this is a license/contract of adhesion, since there is no negotiation, take it or leave it style. Which means that Sun CANNOT disregard its statements as to how it interprets these terms. It can place all the warnings it wants on its FAQ or in the license and scream at the court about the parole evidence rule, but it's not going to the change the facts that IF they change their stance from what it is now to some hypothetical evil the court will rule against them. That's what reliance is all about, and in the case of contracts of adhesion, the party trying to defeat reliance has a very high burden. Better yet, if they say one thing while believing another, you've got an action of fraud against them! The world of modern software licensing has changed everything we know about common law contracts and there is simply no good reason to hold on to absolutest rules. -- Sean Kellogg 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law Graduate Professional Student Senate Treasurer UW Services Activities Fee Committee Chair w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 03:43, Ian Jackson wrote: Mike Bird writes (Re: Sun Java available from non-free): Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal - - a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun. This is obviously not possible. Debian is not a legal entity and can't indemnify anyone. Debian is not a natural person, and Debian is not a corporation, and Debian is not a partnership. Debian would have a hard time getting an unsecured bank loan. This does not immunize Debian against being sued. Debian can be sued as an unincorporated association other than a partnership. Alternatively, Debian can be sued In Rem: Fat Cats Inc versus a software distribution called Debian. Alternatively, Debian can be sued by serving some of Debian's officers and/or DD's and/or mirror operators and/or SPI. Look for Does 1 thru 1 as additional defendents. Stop guessing. Consult a GOOD attorney. And give the good attorney a copy of this thread, because even good attorneys have difficult picking up on all the nuances of a question and this thread contains a lot of good ideas from a lot of good people. Or persuade Sun to issue a usable license rather than hiding behind a legally meaningless FAQ. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote: What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications (so they would most likely be noticed before the release), and/or to do so on Debian only, rather than on every Linux distribution out there; and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. While some people cannot imagine that a contract will be enforced as written, judges can. I didn't say I could not imagine that a contract would enforced as written. I said that I consider the chance for something to actually occur to be small enough that it can be ignored. Remember that this is not about Freedom. If it were about Freedom, I would agree that there is a problem here. But that is not the case; it is about avoiding to get sued. I don't think the demands they are making are wrong per se, nor do I think that the examples of where they /would/ be wrong are realistic, or have any chance of actually occurring. [...] And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam? That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the stuff for which we are not directly responsible. Debian can argue that it is not responsible for software not in Debian archives. However, all software in Debian archives is signed in by a DD, a member of Debian's web of trust. A new upstream bug does not affect Debian until Debian is changed by the DD's incorporation of the upstream version containing the upstream bug. When that change is signed in to Debian, that is a change to Debian made by and authorised by a DD. At that point, Debian becomes responsible for incorporating the upstream bug into Debian, and Debian becomes responsible for indemnifying Sun. That's one way to look at it. Another way would be to say that if there would be a bug where glibc does not work as documented, which appears on _every_ glibc-based platform, then Sun did not do a proper job in testing their software (since it occurs everywhere, remember), so it's really their fault, not ours. Perhaps that depends on the time when the bug is actually introduced. -- 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 Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote: If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like: the use or distribution of your Operating System, or any part thereof, in any manner directly into the license? I dunno? It doesn't matter, because the text goes on to say It does matter in the courts. No, not at all. The text clearly says that we are to idemnify Sun in for anything anyone could sue them over while doing something involving the use or distribution of (our) Operating System, except if something happened not under (our) direction or control. It doesn't matter that you can quote a part of that statement and say it's too broad! Oh, look!, because if you quote part of it, you're not quoting the entire statement, and your statement isn't complete nor does it reflect the intention of the person who wrote it. That's called basic grammar. [...] And you are not to be liable for that only if the modifications made to the underlying systemm are not under your control. If a new upstream version of glibc or the kernel breaks Sun java to function properly or as documented then I believe (according to the license) someone should be be held liable for that break. Who's that? Upsteam? That's Not Our Problem(TM). We're only to indemnify Sun for the things we are directly responsible for. It doesn't mention /anything/ about the stuff for which we are not directly responsible. It easily could became Our Problem(TM) if the break is caused by patch(es) applied to upstream versions by Debian Developer(s) ? Well, yeah, but then it really was Our Fault(TM). There's nothing wrong with standing up for the bad things you've done, is there? Of course, there _is_ something wrong with standing trial for an honest mistake you've made. But do you think a judge have anyone pay a fine if they made an honest mistake while creating something that shouts NO WARRANTY all over? Remember that both Debian and Java do so. Do you think many people will sue if they know that the product they've been using shouts NO WARRANTY all over the place? Of course, there'll always be loonies who will sue even if they have no case. And of course, there'll always be judges who will issue a verdict which is crazy and out of touch with everything else. And while we could theoretically try to ensure that never happens to us, I'd rather not go down that road. How can you ensure that a break will not happend or in a case of such indemnification wont be more than Sun's removal from the official Debian archives. I'm sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Could you please reword? -- 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 Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream changes, but not upstream changes of parts of the Operating System. Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to, say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in such a way that it would no longer behave as documented? Why do I need a case where some other application breaks? The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System, not only for Sun Java. Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you think it's sane to allow loonies to sue Sun over stuff they have nothing, but really _nothing_ to do with? Like, some loonie wants to sue us over his FTP server that went berzerk, finds out that Debian doesn't have a lot of money, and then sues Sun because, hey, there's this Java binary in the same Debian which just _happens_ to be owned by Sun? Sure, I'd prefer if loonies would avoid sueing at all. But if they are going to do that, whether or not there is an idemnification clause on some licence for a software package by Sun isn't going to help us any, because either the loonie is going to sue both us and Sun (so we'd be in court anyway), or the loonie is going to sue Sun first, who would presumably then manage to convince the judge that they're not at fault and that it's us the loonie has to get after (and then we'd be in court as well). [...] and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are, not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to idemnify Sun. How does it do that? In general, upstreams are not allowed to change directly what is released as Debian. Ultimately, it's debian developers that decide what modifications are made to the Operating System and are controlled (heh!) and directed by the various project agreements and processes, so I don't see how those modifications are excluded. If it occurs everywhere, it could reasonably be argued that either the JDK is buggy, or not tested well enough. Alternatively, I don't think it's hard for a judge to understand that there is this piece of software which we indeed do distribute, but which is used by many other people as well, and they all exhibit the same flaw; so even if we allowed the bug to slip in, it's not really our fault. -- 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 Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] If people have weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, that's entirely their choice. Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's entirely my choice how to respond to that. Everyone happy with that? Yes, but policy is generally sensible, edited by DDs, and each change is carefully vetted. debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'. Though I agree there's no requirement to consult debian-legal on every license, ascribing this particular view to debian-legal as a whole is about as productive as saying that all Debian bug submitters want us to emulate GoboLinux, or that having to wait for the clock before being able to read non-garbage output from a pin means all digital circuits are useless... -- 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 Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:59:03PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote: On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards improving the current license There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out here already, I guess people are currently just waiting for the fixes from Sun's legal. Mmm. The impression I got was that people were waiting for the packages to be removed from Debian and no one was really all that interested in responses from Sun, cf: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00025.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00031.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00051.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00058.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00098.html And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers. But that isn't the only issue at stake here, and it's not even the most important one; the other is communicating with Sun and other upstream authors the values that Debian thinks are important, and working with them to find common ground so that the licenses they choose reflect some of the goals and insights we've developed. Sun have made it very clear that they're trying to work with us on this for something that benefits our users, so that just leaves it to us to decide what's more important: taking a principled stand that we'll read every license literally and pedantically; or take advantage of other means by which we can be confident in distributing the software, and in so doing build a relationship with Sun that can be used later, and improve the experience of using Debian for people who need Sun Java? Certainly there are benefits to having a license that can be read literally and pedantically without causing problems -- and they're not small or neglible benefits either, as has been shown by pine, Qt, or ncftp in the past. But when standing up for that principle doesn't actually protect our users, and taking a flexible approach to it helps them, well, we have a social contract to make sure we do bend at this sort of time. Some kind of more structured process would be nice, the DPL could play a useful role there. The process for improving a license is pretty easy: someone suggests improvements to the author, they consider them and ask around for advice, there's some more discussion to make sure the suggestion is a good idea, and eventually a new license is issued. In this case, Sun have already gone to the effort of looking through Debian's procedures and started participating on the -legal list; -legal meanwhile have been obstructive in trying to tell Sun what their license means, even when that contradicts what Sun understands their license to mean as documented in their FAQ, and verified by their lawyers. and developing sufficient confidence in the Debian and free software community to release Java under an entirely free license. In my opinion, that's conflating two separate issues. Afaict, noone working on the DLJ (from Sun's or Debian's side) knew anything about Sun's recently voiced intention to 'release Java under an entirely free license'. I think interpreting that as an intention would be overstating it. Open sourcing Java has been on the cards for quite a while, and equally there have been objections to doing so for quite a while. One of the simplest objections is that the free software community just aren't an interesting market for Java people -- we don't want Java, so why spend effort giving it to us? We have an opportunity, if we choose to take advantage of it, get rid of that objection right now -- by putting in the effort to get Java packaged up in non-free and made useful for our users, both we and Sun can demonstrate that Java on Linux is actually a good idea. Or we could reinforce that objection, by making sure that no step Sun might take will achieve anything, and saying things like We've got Perl and Python and Ruby, why would we want Java? Personally, I'm not a Java programmer anymore than I'm a C++ or a Fortran programmer. But I know Java's a language, and I know Sun have written some runtime software for it, so I think that should first of all be cleanly packaged for Debian, and second of all be free software, and I just don't need a third thought on the issue. Sun already *is* part of the free software community, and has been for years. Sun is a big company; some parts are comfortable working with free software, others aren't. Historically, the Java section hasn't been -- and that's continues to be reflected in how well Java works on Linux. That's something we should change. Debian ships lots of free software with Sun's
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Hello Mike, On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 07:41 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Reading a proposed contract or license in any way other than literally and pedantically is dumb. Some actions are so dumb that no nicer adjective is correct. Judges are like compilers. Modulo judge bugs (which can usually be fixed on appeal) judges process legal source files literally and pedantically. I believe you are quite incorrect - judges are far from automatic. They interpret each and every individual case on its own merit, circumstances and context, on the intention of the law, and take the personal situation of the involved parties in consideration. The keyword is reason: a judge will try to decide in a way that he/she considers to be the most reasonable, not the most literal. More importantly, proclaiming the dumbness of people does not help anyone on this list, including yourself. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 08:21, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 07:41 -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Reading a proposed contract or license in any way other than literally and pedantically is dumb. Some actions are so dumb that no nicer adjective is correct. Judges are like compilers. Modulo judge bugs (which can usually be fixed on appeal) judges process legal source files literally and pedantically. I believe you are quite incorrect - judges are far from automatic. They interpret each and every individual case on its own merit, circumstances and context, on the intention of the law, and take the personal situation of the involved parties in consideration. The keyword is reason: a judge will try to decide in a way that he/she considers to be the most reasonable, not the most literal. [Dropping -devel] Hi Thijs, The DLJ is governed by California law and controlling US federal law [DLJ (14)]. Under the explicit terms [DLJ (14)] and under the parole evidence rule the judge cannot consider anything other than the literal pedantic terms of the contract and subsequent written amendments signed by both parties. Evidence of intent may be introduced where the contract is ambiguous. You have not made any showing that the contract is ambiguous with respect to indemnification, and thus evidence of intent is inadmissible. The personal situations of the parties is inadmissible except where the door is opened by the contract itself or by relevant legislation. You have made no showing that the door has been opened, and thus evidence of personal situations is inadmissible. Judges have broad discretion in some matters: the orderly conduct of proceedings, contempt, evidentiary rulings, ... However judges literally and pedantically follow the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, regulations, licenses, and contracts. If there is any variance from this it is when a party fails to timely raise a relevant point in argument. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive maintainers. The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before agreeing to indemnify Sun so broadly. I've not actively worked on this so far because: 1. I'm not up-to-date with the situation; 2. I've seen mention that others here are filing bug reports; 3. I don't use non-free anyway; 4. there's already working java in main; and 5. I think those responsible are personally at risk, not debian's property. This seems another topic that the DPL is inflaming unnecessarily. It's a shame voters didn't believe those who pointed out that #debian-tech rules are a conflict-creation system, not a conflict-resolution one. [...] Sun have made it very clear that they're trying to work with us on this for something that benefits our users, so that just leaves it to us to decide what's more important: taking a principled stand that we'll read every license literally and pedantically; or take advantage of other means by which we can be confident in distributing the software, and in so doing build a relationship with Sun that can be used later, and improve the experience of using Debian for people who need Sun Java? I know that you are confident in distributing the software under those terms, but it looks to me like most of -legal would have picked a third way: keep negotiating and wait for terms in which they are confident. I'd call that prudence and good practice, not pedantry or obstruction. [...] In this case, Sun have already gone to the effort of looking through Debian's procedures and started participating on the -legal list; -legal meanwhile have been obstructive in trying to tell Sun what their license means, even when that contradicts what Sun understands their license to mean as documented in their FAQ, and verified by their lawyers. -legal seems to have believed what Sun says their license means, namely 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. So, I don't think any reasonable person would prefer Sun's FAQ or emails when they aren't clearly explaining particular terms in an obvious way. If someone seems to say both X is entirely black and X is entirely white then one has to look for some way to decide, such as the above. Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all the no warranty statements in debian and leave the licensee liable for the effects of everything in our operating system? [...] One of the simplest objections is that the free software community just aren't an interesting market for Java people -- we don't want Java, so why spend effort giving it to us? [...] That is a strawman AICM5P. There's been java in main for some time now and the packages show up quite well in popcon, so there seems to be some java people interested in us and it seems to be wanted. Hope that helps, -- 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 Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:39:21PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [...] [snip] 4. there's already working java in main; and Partly/somewhat/mostly working. That's correct: Unfortunately, we've not completely finished liberating all free software written in Java from the proprietary runtime dependency [1] yet. The work is progressing steadily, as can be seen from the API coverage list at http://www.kaffe.org/~stuart/japi/htmlout/h-jdk14-classpath.html for 1.4 and http://www.object-refinery.com/classpath/statcvs/ LOC charts. We need more Java developers to help us create the best Java runtimes and class library implementation as free software. The Debian Java packagers and the respective upstreams would likely appreciate contributions to improve the state of support for free software written in the Java programming language on free runtimes, such that it can be moved into the main archive. See http://www.classpath.org for helping out with the class library, and see, for example, FSF's gcj at http://gcc.gnu.org/java for the leading (35%, says popcon) free runtime. Debian also packages JamVM and Cacao, among other traditional free runtimes, as well as IKVM. Please report bugs in the class library to GNU Classpath's bug tracker, so that they can be fixed. If you have a chance, please consider contributing a patch to help make the Java application you care about work (better). See http://jroller.com/page/dgilbert?entry=sven_de_genius , http://kennke.org/blog/?p=5 and http://kennke.org/blog/?p=7 for a few applications that are currently being liberated from dependencies on proprietary Java implementations. cheers, dalibor topic [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is common sense really valid? For example, it is common sense to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that common sense is obviously wrong. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEhgQZS9HxQb37XmcRAvFaAKDC2niBaDpsJbiwvX0QA9utJhcQSACfe28j cMK8+C6xO+LJMurbMbuiUDE= =xO9I -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
(-devel dropped) On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:25:13AM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: A few possible problems are: - The promise was made without consideration (no symbolic one cent payment) That's not true; they received assistance from Debian developers including myself on reviewing the license's suitability, packaging assistance, and in preparing their press release, all of which was provided after Sun had indicated they were trying to prepare a license that would allow Debian to distribute Java in non-free, and with the aim of making that possible. - The promise was not formally notarised. A press notice may not count. There are plenty of mail logs that can be provided as evidence as well, should we need it. If there's a particular statement that people think would be helpful, we could probably arrange to get that notarised (though obviously We hereby license Java under the GPL will take more than a little time). - It wouldn't damage Debian or anybody much to revoke the statement. If that's the case, there's no problem -- if Sun decide they'd like us to remove Java from non-free, they don't have to do anything beyond ask, and if they want it removed from non-free for stable, wait a month or two until the next point release is due. 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. (Obviously, they've now done something like this as well) Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 06:23 +0100, Carlos Correia a écrit : How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts? What a big troll you are... - From all your posts, there is only one thing we got to know: your opinion, which is, basicly, GPL or nothing. No need to go on trolling around... everyone has got your point. If you haven't followed the discussions, you probably don't have to tell the whole world about it. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Mike Bird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. Although a regular reader of debian-legal, I seldom post here. I believe Andrew may have seen me on -devel, -isp, -users, etc. Yes, I think I was reading off -devel. If Towns and Langasek have finished with the ad hominems, can we now return to consideration of the issues? Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and making completely offtopic posts. Now I *really* wish mailing lists had moderation like /. does. -1 Troll to nearly every post AJ has made here. andrew -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply is none. The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. Just for clarification, a position expressed by a person that has a special position but is not elected is to be considered an official statement by the project? To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of authority is. The same thing applies when the dpkg maintainer speaks about dpkg -- every maintainer is an authority on their own package. Beyond that, the DPL is authorised to make statements of support for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise (5.1.2), which I've done above, and that is an elected position, if you feel that makes a difference. Those aren't the final word; technical statements by maintainers can be overruled by the technical committee, and pretty much anything can be overruled by a general resolution of some sort or another, but, just for clarification, yes that really is the way things work in Debian. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns -- Debian Project Leader signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
#include hallo.h * Andrew Donnellan [Mon, Jun 05 2006, 07:13:29AM]: No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel list. They should just not be able to appear as beeing competent or even be in charge, which has been prevented by the DPL. What is wrong with not being a DD? I'm not one, I'm not in NM, I don't maintain any packages, I just care about free software and Debian in particular. Phrased after a famous german comedian: Democracy means, you are allowed to have an opinion on everything. You do not have to. Especially some people should learn a simple fact: if you do not have anything new to say, just STFU. Debian is supposed to be *open* and *transparent*. Telling off users because their opinion doesn't matter is just stupid. What Mike said is completely relevant, and IMHO correct. Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near future. Just stop chewing the same arguments, let the people do their work. And do not try to polarize the discussion with another summary of facts, yeah, I could contribute to this discussion somehow so I rock. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
In linux.debian.legal Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes. As it seems here, the DDs, including one DPL, are trolling and making completely offtopic posts. Or maybe, but just maybe, you are in the wrong place and should spend your time in an environment where everybody is not so much hostile... -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:43:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: To a degree, yes. In this particular case, ftpmaster are the maintainers of the archive, and their statements on what's suitable for the archive are authoritative by definition -- that's precisely what their area of authority is. The same thing applies when the dpkg maintainer speaks about dpkg -- every maintainer is an authority on their own package. Of course, but the authority of doing something and Debian position are different concepts. One is techical decision and the other a policy decision. The ftpmaster implement the policy but do not decide it. Beyond that, the DPL is authorised to make statements of support for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise (5.1.2), which I've done above, and that is an elected position, if you feel that makes a difference. Could you be more specific about the above ? i.e. Where did you make a (5.1.2) statement ? In that case, I would suggest Constitution 5.3. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:44:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 06:13:27AM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply is none. The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. The actual issues raised were about obligation and liabilities incurred by Debian much more than whether we have permission to include it. (The purpose of the license is to trade the permission with obligation and liabilities). I don't see Sun having a position on the amount of obligation and liability Debian should accept and how such position would be relevant to Debian policy. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Scripsit Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au The issue at question is whether Sun has given adequate permission for Debian to include java in non-free -- Sun's position on that isn't just relevant, it's the entire question. The relevant part of Sun's position is the license. That license does not contain a permission that Debian should be comfortable using. Sun says something different from the license in a FAQ that explicitly defines itself as having no legal effect. The FAQ itself says that it should not be believed when it contradicts the license. Therefore, supporting the decision to distribute their software in non-free on the parts of the FAQ that directly contradicts the license is not a reasonable position. -- Henning MakholmNej, hvor er vi altså heldige! Længe leve vor Buxgører Sansibar Bastelvel! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le lundi 05 juin 2006 à 12:54 +0200, Eduard Bloch a écrit : Yes. Should 100 people appear now and say the same things again, and again, and again? WE GOT IT. WE DO NOT NEED TO READ IT AGAIN. Apparently some people haven't received it, if they need to dismiss the argument based on the fact it has been expressed by non-developers. We are not through with this issue, and it will be solved in the near future. What makes you believe this will be solved in the near future? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Saturday 03 June 2006 16:57, Anthony Towns wrote: You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's not Debian's position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. Non-freeness is a red herring. The issue is that a small cabal - - a small cabal operating outside its field of expertise - has placed Debian in the position of indemnifying Sun. The response that Debian can drop Java is irrelevant. Dropping Java would not retroactively remove Debian's indemnification liablity. The response that the FAQ protects Debian is plain wrong. The FAQ on its face states that it does not modify the license. The response that conversations with Sun protect Debian is naive. By now the small cabal would have posted any written promises from Sun if it had them. Anything less is worthless. The response that Debian has no assets to be lost is nice in theory but absurd in practice. The small cabal has given potential adversaries an opening to file non-frivolous lawsuits against Debian, Debian mirrors, and Debian contributors. Potential adverseries include successors in Sun's interest. In real world courts, such lawsuits could result in significant damage to Debian in particular and FOSS in general. Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 17:39 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. Despite all of that, he's written a pretty good summary of the situation. You can add all personal attacks you want, that won't change. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. For those DPLs that should know better... he has a fair point. Rather than debunking, how about participating? Cheers, Brett. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. Just for clarification, a position expressed by a person that has a special position but is not elected is to be considered an official statement by the project? 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!
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. None of those things seem to be relevant. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. None of those things seem to be relevant. For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. As beautiful as this irony is of a non-developer asserting on a developer list that being involved in development is irrelevant, you might want to give some thought to the question of why a non-developer making demands of anyone might be seen as doubly-inappropriate. -- 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
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. As beautiful as this irony is of a non-developer asserting on a developer list that being involved in development is irrelevant, you might want to give some thought to the question of why a non-developer making demands of anyone might be seen as doubly-inappropriate. How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts? -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. That's not even remotely relevant to the points he makes. The identity of the person that makes the arguments isn't relevant. The arguments are. Frankly, I am concerned about the points he raises and it troubles me that you would seek to attack the person rather than the points he has raised. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least damaging route to go for, imho. You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's not Debian's position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. I see no ground in the Debian constitution to claim this is Debian's position. Being the ftp-masters decisision does not make it the Debian's position. As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply is none. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sunday 04 June 2006 02:23, Andrew Donnellan wrote: On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is. Although a regular reader of debian-legal, I seldom post here. I believe Andrew may have seen me on -devel, -isp, -users, etc. If Towns and Langasek have finished with the ad hominems, can we now return to consideration of the issues? --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Bill Allombert wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:57:40AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I see no ground in the Debian constitution to claim this is Debian's position. Being the ftp-masters decisision does not make it the Debian's position. As for the relevance of Sun position on Debian developers, there simply is none. I will generally work from a presumption that the ftp-master has a good deal of experience judging what does and does not fit the Debian community's and Debian constitutions interests and purpose. (but of course we're all human, so it's still possible that one or two packages are incorrectly classified). Sun's position, while not authoritative, does support the ftp-master's decision. I expect that if sun had a good reason for arguing that Java should be distributed under (the more widely available) default branch, they would have done so, since that would help java's market penetration. If they say that it belongs in non-free (and nobody manages to credibly debunk that position ) then I would be inclined to believe that it shouldn't be rated any better than whatthey specified. -- Stephen Samuel +1(778)861-7641 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bcgreen.com/ Powerful committed communication. Transformation touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to light. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Olaf van der Spek wrote: I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're right and not being one means you're wrong? More like, being a Debian developer means your arguments are ignored and not being a Debian developer means your arguments are ignored (for a completely different reason). -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 6/4/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:39AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote: Too many excuses. All inadequate. It is past time that the covert actions of the small cabal were openly reviewed. The license (for convenience), any relevant written promises from Sun (if any), and any relevant written legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. None of those things seem to be relevant. For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're right and not being one means you're wrong? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to indemnify Sun in certain circumstances should not have happened without consulting with the board of SPI and SPI's attorney. **Regardless** of the particular opinion on whether or not this is a legal risk, this consultation should have happened so that SPI was aware of the situation and could have obtained an opinion from a qualified attorney. Do not forget that SPI, as the legal entity representing Debian and the holder of the assets of Debian, is on the hook for this if Sun (or any licensor) gets sued and tries to recover from Debian. I am not well-versed enough with the history of all this to know the answer to the question, but I would also raise the question of whether random Debian developers (even if the group includes the DPL) have the authority to enter into such a legal agreement without the consent of SPI. I don't know the answer to that, nor am I trying to advocate any particular point of view. But I think it is something that bears discussion. Even if we determine that such consultation is not *required*, it would certainly be the more polite thing to do. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
#include hallo.h * Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]: For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're right and not being one means you're wrong? No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel list. They should just not be able to appear as beeing competent or even be in charge, which has been prevented by the DPL. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
please on-topic messages (Re: Sun Java available from non-free)
AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer, AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the AT debian-legal list. So what? I would like to request everyone to think before posting any message on the debian mailing lists. Which mailing list is the most appropriate one? Must the message be posted on multiple mailing lists, or is one list enough? Does my message add enough value to be worth posting to so many people? Is the subject still the same or does my message start a new discussion? Does it work towards a real solution for the issue being discussed? Have I read all previous messages of the subject so that my message doesn't repeat what's already said? And so on. Thanks, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 09:57 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards improving the current license There have been numerous issues with the current text pointed out here already, I guess people are currently just waiting for the fixes from Sun's legal. Some kind of more structured process would be nice, the DPL could play a useful role there. and developing sufficient confidence in the Debian and free software community to release Java under an entirely free license. In my opinion, that's conflating two separate issues. Afaict, noone working on the DLJ (from Sun's or Debian's side) knew anything about Sun's recently voiced intention to 'release Java under an entirely free license'. That intention has been publicized after Sun announced the Debian/Canonical deal, rather then as part of it. I don't recall either Schwartz or Green giving an impression at JavaOne that Sun's decision was or would be influenced by Debian carrying DLJ-licensed software. Suggesting that two issues are interrelated seems unwarranted to me, given the currently publicly available knowledge. Sun already *is* part of the free software community, and has been for years. Debian ships lots of free software with Sun's copyright on it. I would be very surprised if a multi-billion dollar corporation with 35k+ employees, largely working on free software, needed particular handholding from someone else to figure out what free software is, given how many bright people work over there on free software already. ;) cheers, dalibor topic -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. That's not even remotely relevant to the points he makes. The identity of the person that makes the arguments isn't relevant. The arguments are. How about reading what Anthony actually replied to? Mike demanded that the DPL perform certain actions. Suggesting that somebody actually get involved in Debian before making demands of its leadership isn't unreasonable. Alternatively, it could be phrased as a request. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Bill Allombert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner. ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict deadline for pulling it, if not immediately doing it (which I prefer). I would suggest you start by reporting a RC bug listing all the legal objections so far so at least it do not get more usage by being migrated to testing. Bugs #370245, #370295, #370296. I tried to stick to clear-cut cases where Debian is not following the license. Indemnification is more of a policy decision. The non-free is not part of Debian argument is also unclear, since a lot of people do not think it is true in practice. Other than that, I think I covered all of the truly problematic cases (as opposed to just being really annoying). 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
On 6/4/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: #include hallo.h * Olaf van der Spek [Sun, Jun 04 2006, 02:31:00PM]: For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. Sorry, got the name confused and now suddenly realises the mistake :( I guess the conclusion is that being a Debian developer means you're right and not being one means you're wrong? No. The conclusion is that sane Debian developers do recognize the problem and prepare an effective solution for it in silence. In the meantime wanna-be developers are allowed to troll on debian-devel list. They should just not be able to appear as beeing competent or even be in charge, which has been prevented by the DPL. What is wrong with not being a DD? I'm not one, I'm not in NM, I don't maintain any packages, I just care about free software and Debian in particular. Debian is supposed to be *open* and *transparent*. Telling off users because their opinion doesn't matter is just stupid. What Mike said is completely relevant, and IMHO correct. -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: please on-topic messages (Re: Sun Java available from non-free)
And which part of the message you quote as an example is the inappropriate one? AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer, AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the AT debian-legal list. is COMPLETELY irrelevant IMHO. On 6/4/06, Bart Martens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AT For those playing along at home, zzz isn't a Debian developer, AT doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer AT applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the AT debian-legal list. So what? I would like to request everyone to think before posting any message on the debian mailing lists. Which mailing list is the most appropriate one? Must the message be posted on multiple mailing lists, or is one list enough? Does my message add enough value to be worth posting to so many people? Is the subject still the same or does my message start a new discussion? Does it work towards a real solution for the issue being discussed? Have I read all previous messages of the subject so that my message doesn't repeat what's already said? And so on. Thanks, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 03:30:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:39:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: For those playing along at home, Mike isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He doesn't even seem to be a regular participant on the debian-legal list. That's not even remotely relevant to the points he makes. The identity of the person that makes the arguments isn't relevant. The arguments are. How about reading what Anthony actually replied to? Mike demanded that the DPL perform certain actions. Suggesting that somebody actually get involved in Debian before making demands of its leadership isn't unreasonable. Alternatively, it could be phrased as a request. His message was polite, and didn't seem like a demand (despite the use of the word cabal). His request was quite reasonable, and I heartily agree with it. His message also was much more than that, which aj totally dismissed. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His message was polite, and didn't seem like a demand (despite the use of the word cabal). The Too many excuses. All inadequate bit was polite? His request was quite reasonable, and I heartily agree with it. His message also was much more than that, which aj totally dismissed. The post was phrased in an unnecessarily hostile manner. There should be no expectation for people to usefully respond to that sort of thing. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josselin Mouette wrote: Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 03:59 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : For those still playing, Olaf also isn't a Debian developer, doesn't maintain any packages, and isn't a new-maintainer applicant. He's made something like 5 posts to debian-legal, though, which I guess given Andrew Donnellan's assertion that someone with one post ever on -legal is a regular participant, means Olaf is a senior analyst or something. As beautiful as this irony is of a non-developer asserting on a developer list that being involved in development is irrelevant, you might want to give some thought to the question of why a non-developer making demands of anyone might be seen as doubly-inappropriate. How about stopping the discussions about who is a developer or not, who has the right to discuss or not, and sticking to the facts? What a big troll you are... - From all your posts, there is only one thing we got to know: your opinion, which is, basicly, GPL or nothing. No need to go on trolling around... everyone has got your point. Carlos - -- MEMÓRIA PERSISTENTE, Lda. Tel.: 219 291 591 - GSM: 967 511 762 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - URL: http://www.m16e.com Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ: 257488263 GnuPG: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEg7/e90uzwjA1SJURAqMAAJ42jZb5r1QQcT8qznDia08d5ONhZwCdFFmG PALHJN/iqpJuA0YuoxxpjWE= =gcWL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Hello, On Sat, 20.05.2006 at 16:18:44 -0500, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to examine the license in public), this sounds _very_ strange to me. I can see why SUN might want their Java in Debian, but your statements just fuel conspiracy theories. That's not to say the license issues aren't problems, they are, and I hope debian-legal will be able to work with Sun both on helping them improve their non-free license, and in the future, helping them work through their concerns in applying a free license to Java. Obviously the Usually it works the other way round: First fix the problems, then issue the cookie, and not putting oneself into trouble and then try to ward off problems by threatening to unroll the change for future cases, but only after damage was incurred already. Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Hello, On Sun, 21.05.2006 at 13:38:57 +0200, Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know how much Sun decision-makers are worried that a move against Debian could be bad PR... additionally, it harms *Debian's* PR a great deal if it turns out that Debian needs to pull the package. Unfortunately many many people out there are not very interested in dissecting licenses and in telling real and fake free software apart. Even less in examining potential issues with non-free packages. Debian would become (viewed as, at least, as) one more project to not take care about what Free Software is, despite the strong emphasis issued in most public statements... OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least damaging route to go for, imho. They really should spend time in writing a more carefully worded license, rather than drafting non-legally-binding explanations that seem to be inconsistent with the actual terms and conditions. +1 I think that more time was needed to review possible issues, before deciding that Debian could go on and publicly state that everything was fine... +1 I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner. ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict deadline for pulling it, if not immediately doing it (which I prefer). Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: I really hope we can solve the issues in a graceful manner. ...and fast, too. This is urgent while that the package is in the archive with the broken license. I think we should set a strict deadline for pulling it, if not immediately doing it (which I prefer). I would suggest you start by reporting a RC bug listing all the legal objections so far so at least it do not get more usage by being migrated to testing. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:37:21PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: Unfortunately many many people out there are not very interested in dissecting licenses and in telling real and fake free software apart. Even less in examining potential issues with non-free packages. Debian would become (viewed as, at least, as) one more project to not take care about what Free Software is, despite the strong emphasis issued in most public statements... Neither Sun nor Debian have at any point said that Sun Java is free software -- it's been uploaded to non-free for precisely that reason. If anyone does think that, it's pretty easy to clarify for them -- Debian's stance is that free software is important, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore non-free software that our users want. OTOH, I'd say pull it *now* while distribution is low, then fix the problems, and only *then* get it back in... seems to be the least damaging route to go for, imho. You can say that if you like, but please be aware that it's not Debian's position. Debian's position, as consistently expressed by ftpmaster, on this list, and in the press, is that the license is acceptable for non-free, and that is also Sun's position. I would furthermore strongly encourage people to work *with* Sun towards improving the current license and developing sufficient confidence in the Debian and free software community to release Java under an entirely free license. The end goal isn't to turn this into a PR stunt to make sure Debian's viewed the right way, it's both to help our users get software they need, free or not, and to encourage more people to make their software free. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns -- Debian Project Leader signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
* Stephen Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060525 06:01]: Unfortunately, neither the FAQ nor emails from Sun are actually legally binding I'm not sure why mails shouldn't be legally binding (of course, depending on their content - I didn't see any mails up to now). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 06:27:53PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]: So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know that my own ongoing notion of best practices comes from stuff I learned long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref. Well, wouldn't it be a good idea to make just sync the dev ref with what you consider as best practice? Certainly! Perhaps one of these years I'll find time to think about doing that. :-) (And, BTW, I make much effort to only update the dev ref with correct information.) Sure, I don't doubt that this is the case. I'm just saying that, since the devref is non-normative, it doesn't attract the same attention from the community that policy does on keeping it updated, which is hard for a small group of editors to overcome because people tend to be biased to think their own viewpoint is the consensus viewpoint :) -- 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 24 May 2006, Andreas Barth stated: * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]: So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know that my own ongoing notion of best practices comes from stuff I learned long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref. Well, wouldn't it be a good idea to make just sync the dev ref with what you consider as best practice? (And, BTW, I make much effort to only update the dev ref with correct information.) Best practices are subjective. I am sure people who write dev ref feel those are best practices, I just happen to differ. Substituting my biases for the current authors biases is unlikely to improve matters for the majority of developers. manoj -- Let me take you a button-hole lower. William Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060525 08:15]: On 24 May 2006, Andreas Barth stated: * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]: So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know that my own ongoing notion of best practices comes from stuff I learned long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref. Well, wouldn't it be a good idea to make just sync the dev ref with what you consider as best practice? (And, BTW, I make much effort to only update the dev ref with correct information.) Best practices are subjective. I am sure people who write dev ref feel those are best practices, I just happen to differ. Substituting my biases for the current authors biases is unlikely to improve matters for the majority of developers. Well, I try to avoid that there is a bias at all (though of course I know it is next to impossible to have none at all, it is quite possible to get the bias very small). For this reason, if anyone detects something he considers as bias, please tell me. That's the only way it could be fixed. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] I refer to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I went through the NM queue. [...] Then, as you know, Policy contains the instruction: 'When in doubt about a copyright, send mail to debian-legal@lists.debian.org' and Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay' so surely there was some doubt? Then lack of mail to debian-legal looks like a policy-related bug, as if sun-java5 wasn't problematic enough. 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: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't... The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. New packages the process to add new packages to Debian: Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, `Bug reporting') against the pseudo-package `wnpp' describing your plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL where it can be downloaded from. Note the words the license of the prospective package. Such process was overlooked here. Sure, this might not be an obligation but overlooking well-respected processes for that reason alone is not a very efficient way to work. Being technically allowed to do something do not make it right and do not absolve you from criticisms. Cheers, -- Bill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 04:54:13PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:27:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: complaining that no one shopped the license around to -legal before the upload (which no one ever has an obligation to do) isn't... The Debian developer reference states in section 5.1. New packages the process to add new packages to Debian: Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must then submit a bug report (Section 7.1, `Bug reporting') against the pseudo-package `wnpp' describing your plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL where it can be downloaded from. Note the words the license of the prospective package. Such process was overlooked here. Sure, this might not be an obligation but overlooking well-respected processes for that reason alone is not a very efficient way to work. Being technically allowed to do something do not make it right and do not absolve you from criticisms. Sorry, but being listed in the dev ref does not make something a well-respected process. I appreciate the work that the devref editors put into trying to keep that document current on best-practices, but edits to the devref don't enjoy nearly the level of scrutiny that policy does, and I have no expectation that the devref is free of editor bias (or even just plain errors). That's a chicken-and-egg problem, of course; since deviating from recommendations of the devref is not grounds for a bug, there's less pressure to ensure the recommendations it contains are good ones. I refer to Policy on a regular basis, but I don't think I've read the devref since I went through the NM queue. So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know that my own ongoing notion of best practices comes from stuff I learned long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref. -- 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 06:58:08PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-) The questions asked weren't Is this okay for non-free? it's Did you mean or when you wrote ?. The answers to those latter questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring it just wastes everyone's time. Several people have already pointed out this bit on top of the said FAQ: Note: This FAQ is provided to help explain the Operating System Distributor License for Java; nothing in this FAQ is intended to amend the license, so please consult the license itself for the precise terms and conditions that actually apply. To my eyes that reads as please disregard this FAQ. It's simply not authoritative. The FAQ offers no As. Why do you think that we should not ignore it? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On 5/22/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: The questions asked weren't Is this okay for non-free? it's Did you mean or when you wrote ?. The answers to those latter questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring it just wastes everyone's time. If the FAQ weren't so obviously full of lies, maybe it wouldn't be ignored. That said, (IANAL) the people who have said on this thread that the estoppel thing doesn't apply outside the US or whatever seem to be ignoring the choice of law clause.
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) wrote: On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. Some of this might have been avoided had one or two of the debian-legal regulars been asked to look into it. Changing the license beforehand certainly would have been better than ending up in this situation. You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-) The questions asked weren't Is this okay for non-free? it's Did you mean or when you wrote ?. The answers to those latter questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring it just wastes everyone's time. Unfortunately, neither the FAQ nor emails from Sun are actually legally binding so while this is a nice exercise to help identify places where Sun should change the license to make it more clear it doesn't actually improve the license by itself. I'd like to think that this would have been pointed out by most any debian-legal regular who might have reviewed it. Thanks, Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060524 17:54]: So I guess you can still criticize folks for this if you want to, but I know that my own ongoing notion of best practices comes from stuff I learned long ago plus new ideas discussed on this mailing list, not from the devref. Well, wouldn't it be a good idea to make just sync the dev ref with what you consider as best practice? (And, BTW, I make much effort to only update the dev ref with correct information.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Well, but *that* I don't think is a worry. Sun changes their mind, we take the software out of non-free again, oh well. Just like if they change the license down the road. The worry is over whether we get sued. If they might just make us take the software out of the archive again, oh well. Like Steve says, I think that's a risk for quite a lot of stuff in non-free, and is one of the (many) reasons why the amount of support Debian offers for non-free is extremely limited. *Because* this is non-free, I think the situation is very, very different than it would be for main, and in more ways than just what criteria are applied to judging the license. For example, I personally don't think that Debian makes as strong of an ongoing committment to support something by including it in non-free; simply removing it in the case of problems is more of a viable option. (This may be an opinion that's idiosyncratic to me, though.) 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. One of the reasons why I'm curious about analoguous laws in other legal systems is that, as I understand it, the no consideration bits aren't as relevant to estoppel. That's a factor in validity of contracts, but estoppel is a separate principle. Estoppel basically says that you can't trap people by lying about your intentions and then suing them when they rely on your promises. 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 Yeah, that page is about promissory estoppel, and what I'm talking about is equitable estoppel. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/equitable+estoppel equitable estoppel n. where a court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has not acted fairly; for example, by having made false representations or concealing material facts from the other party. This illustrates the legal maxim: he who seeks equity, must do equity. Example: Larry Landlord rents space to Dora Dressmaker in his shopping center but falsely tells her a Sears store will be a tenant and will draw customers to the project. He does not tell her a new freeway is going to divert traffic from the center. When she failed to pay her rent due to lack of business, Landlord sues her for breach of lease. Dressmaker may claim he is equitably estopped. 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. Yeah. Not disagreeing there. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:13:47 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] 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. Yeah. Not disagreeing there. Mmmh, we would end up with a contradictory license if Sun did this, because the FAQ seems to be inconsistent with the current license. Hence, no, I don't think attaching the FAQ to the license would be a good solution. The license itself should be rephrased in order to actually say what Sun meant. -- :-( 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 pgpYlkNDd6xXX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sun Java available from non-free
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 06:14:51PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:18:44PM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote: Anyway, the background is that James Troup, Jeroen van Wolffelaar and myself examined the license before accepting it into non-free (which is three times the usual examination, and was done given the inability to examine the license in public), and both James and Jeroen had extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were actually okay. You won't expect Sun to say they are not, would you? :-) The questions asked weren't Is this okay for non-free? it's Did you mean or when you wrote ?. The answers to those latter questions are, ttbomk, all included in the FAQ, which is why ignoring it just wastes everyone's time. most important, is that should any of these problems actually happen, we can fairly simply just drop Sun Java from non-free if we can't come to a better conclusion. Do you mean we can drop it if problems arise? Or do you mean we can drop it if we cannot conlcude it's okay to distribute it? I doubt you mean the first case, as it would be too late then. No, that's not the case -- if we are informed that there is a problem with what we're distributing, we can drop it 90 days after we're so informed, and not have any problems. Right, but again, why bringing the package with a bad license into the archive first? Because non-free is for bad licenses in the sense that they don't meet the DFSG, and because the Sun license is not bad in the sense that it causes any problems that we cannot deal with. 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? Java is one of the most important packages for which we don't have an effective non-free replacement at present. The only one that I can think of that would be more important would be flash. Cheers, aj 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!
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]
