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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
(-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
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:
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
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
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
#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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
#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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
-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
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
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.
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
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
* 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
--
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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.
* 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
* 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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
