I was not CC'd, so I did not notice this action on this bug until now. > severity 370295 important > thanks
You are the release manager, and you can modify the normal processing of bugs. So I won't argue about the severity of this bug. > The rationale given for reopening this bug was: > > "The SWT example suggests that it is OK to reimplement large parts of the > Java API and configure Sun's Java to run with it, but the plain language > of the license prohibits it." > > Even though the license text appears to prohibit this, and even though the > license text asserts that the FAQ is non-binding, we have: You are confusing me. The FAQ _is_ binding. > - a statement from upstream (in the FAQ) that the DLJ does not prohibit > distributing sun-java5 together with eclipse, which implies it does not > prohibit distributing it together with SWT That is why this is all so confusing. Sun contradicts itself. The reasonable thing to do is to find out what Sun wants before charging ahead with packaging. > - an upstream liaison who understands Debian packaging and how these > packages are put together and who, after reviewing this bug report, closed > it with the statement that these issues have been addressed. I don't know what upstream thinks. I know what Tom Marble says, but Tom Marble has never claimed that he speaks authoriatively for Sun when deciding whether the packaging is ok. I have asked him several times, and he never replied to that question. > It is also debatable whether Debian has "combined, configured, or > distributed the Software to run in conjunction with any additional > software that implements the same or similar functionality or APIs > as the Software." We are distributing the software in such a way > that a user can opt to combine them The "provides: java2-runtime" line configures sun's java to run with any program that needs it. I do not understand how you can argue otherwise. > , but even though sun-java5 is > listed as providing java2-runtime, on a default Debian system > non-free is not even listed in the apt configuration. It does not matter whether sun-java is available on a default Debian system. It only matters whether Debian is the one distributing the incompatible packages. > I'm not going to claim that there are no bugs in the way this > package is currently licensed; lack of clarity is always a bug. But > I don't believe there is anything here that warrants holding the > package out of the release -- and upstream apparently agrees. In any case, the code will become GPL, so this problem will go away on its own. It is unfortunate that the package was rammed through without competent review of the license. Cheers, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
