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 disc
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,
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 whethe
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
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
> > > [...] If people have
> > > weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> > > that's entirely their choice.
> > Yes, that pack
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 no
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 n
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
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
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 w
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 a
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 distrib
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 ups
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
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
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
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
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence
> 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'.
I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The
MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participant
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 likel
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 mistake
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 Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> >
> > > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
> > > > all the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee
> > > > liabl
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > > 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 y
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > [...] 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 c
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,
Anthony Towns
> 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
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
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 [...]
> >
> > > 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
> > >
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns [...]
> > 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 t
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:39:21PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns [...]
> [snip]
> > 4. there's already working java in main; and
>
> Partly/somewhat/mostly working.
That's correct: Unfortunately, we've not complet
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.
>really surprised that the archive maintainers felt no need to consult
>developers about this licence, in public or private, or SPI, before
>agreeing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns [...]
[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 racis
Anthony Towns [...]
> 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
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:43:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.h
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
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 04:43, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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
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
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 h
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
> Deb
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
#include
* 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 n
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
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
releva
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:02:59PM +0200, Javier Fern?ndez-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:52:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > - something it already had (admins who really wanted Sun's Java could
> > > always go to java.sun.com and install it themselves or use java-pack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By whom? A bunch of people with too much time on their hands. Is there
an actual lawyer involved? I don't think so.
This is a crazy stupid argument. By this argument, Debian should distribute
absolutely
anything, no matter what the license, unless a lawyer gets involv
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 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
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 22:48 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> Is the "popular press" ever right on Debian-related matters? No. Should
> we care? No.
Why shouldn't we care? Debian suffers from its image and this has been a
known problem for years, and we shouldn't care?
--
.''`. J
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 kn
-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 l
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 11:02:59PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> Please RTFM [1], Blackdown has been distributing java packages for Debian
> through their own APT repositories and mirror network for quite some time.
> For example check this:
>
> # Blackdown Java
> deb ftp://ftp.gw
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 th
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-main
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 6/4/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
#include
* 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-
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:52:22PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > - something it already had (admins who really wanted Sun's Java could
> > always go to java.sun.com and install it themselves or use java-package)
>
> Well, see, *this* is not true. Sure, it's possible to install Java on a
> De
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 04:28:18PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> All good points. However, I think that much of the "popular" press (in
> the sense of popular geek press) is not making the distinction between
> Debian proper and Debian non-free. Some have, but others have not.
> Headlines li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Perrier wrote:
>>>
[snip]
> All good points. However, I think that much of the "popular" press (in
> the sense o
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
>>Christian Perrier wrote:
>>
>>>And isn't another "small cabal" of freeness junkies, who cannot accept
>>>that it is actually possible to work with commercial vendors to assist
>>>them in their way to f
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 shou
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 17:50 +0600, Christian Perrier a écrit :
> And isn't another "small cabal" of freeness junkies, who cannot accept
> that it is actually possible to work with commercial vendors to assist
> them in their way to free software, doing exactly the opposite by
> playing words w
Le dimanche 04 juin 2006 à 08:58 -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez a écrit :
> If Larry Ellison shows
> up at the next DebConf can we expect Debian to start distributing Oracle
> as well?
If Oracle allows the project to distribute Oracle with *reasonable*
license terms for non-free, and if someone is will
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Christian Perrier wrote:
> > And isn't another "small cabal" of freeness junkies, who cannot accept
> > that it is actually possible to work with commercial vendors to assist
> > them in their way to free software, doing exactly
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
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 fixe
> 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 post
> AT == Anthony Towns [2006-6-4]
AT> For those playing along at home, Mike 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?
--
Ciao, Davide
--
To
#include
* 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
> >Donnella
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 h
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>
>> - something it already had (admins who really wanted Sun's Java could
>>always go to java.sun.com and install it themselves or use java-package)
>
>
> Come on; you could say this about almost
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 08:45:11AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> - something it already had (admins who really wanted Sun's Java could
> always go to java.sun.com and install it themselves or use java-package)
Come on; you could say this about almost _every single_ package in the
archive.
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
complete
Christian Perrier wrote:
>
> And isn't another "small cabal" of freeness junkies, who cannot accept
> that it is actually possible to work with commercial vendors to assist
> them in their way to free software, doing exactly the opposite by
> playing words with legal issues ?
>
Please explain how
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 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 ac
> 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.
And isn't another "small cabal" of freeness junkies, who cannot accept
that it is actually possible to work w
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 d
Scripsit Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As beautiful as this irony is of a non-developer asserting on a developer
> list that being involved in development is irrelevant,
But being involved in development _is_ irrelevant as regards whether
his arguments have merit or not.
--
Henning Makho
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 tha
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 d
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'
On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns 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.
On 6/4/06, Anthony Towns 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 an
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
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:
> > 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
>
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 6/4/06, 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.
As a semi-regular on -legal, I can say he is.
--
An
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 leg
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 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 beco
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 im
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.
Hello,
On Sat, 20.05.2006 at 16:18:44 -0500, Anthony Towns
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 consp
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
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 l
* 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
> >>
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 l
On 25 May 2006, Mike Bird verbalised:
> On Wednesday 24 May 2006 22:41, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On 24 May 2006, MJ Ray outgrape:
>>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Anthony Towns already mentioned: 'both James and Jeroen had
>>> extensive contact with Sun to ensure that the tricky clause
* 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.ar
[Michael Meskes]
> So why is Java su much more important than all other packages in NEW?
One metric could be the popularity-contest score. Looking at
http://popcon.debian.org/unknown/by_vote> to see what packages
are in common use by our packages while being missing in the debian
archive show ja
On Wed, 24 May 2006 07:41:04 -0500, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 12:10:43AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
>> Sure we could just have disclosed the license to -legal beforehand, but
>> then Sun probably would never talk to us about doing things like this
>> one again and just t
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
>>
1 - 100 of 268 matches
Mail list logo
