Debian DPL Threatens to Leave SPI Over Sun Java 291
An anonymous reader writes "A three-week-long flame war in debian-devel over the new Java Distribution License has culminated in Anthony Towns, the newly elected Debian Project Lead, offering to separate Debian from its legal representative, SPI. This came as a response to SPI member John Goerzen's objections to the Debian project's interaction with Sun's legal team around the new JDL license without review from SPI's lawyers."
So basically... (Score:2, Informative)
SPI is right to be pissed. They're Debians legal representation, and if some guy makes a stupid decission, without consulting them, it'll look baad for THEM (and not Debian). The legal implications of this thing could be huge.And as the guy said, you can't trust Sun to look iut for Debians best interests.
Debian is violating Sun's licensing is the issue. (Score:5, Informative)
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
The US places export restrictions on certain types of software (mostly encryption related stuff), which Sun has reflected in it's license. Since Debian can't/won't control which country has access to US-based mirrors then that means that they can't fuffill the obligation to screen out illegal downloads from certain countries and such. According to this license the work around Debian has used in the past is to have non-US for exported restricted software. Which is basicly you can only have the software on non-US based mirrors.
Debian has gotten rid of non-US for Sarge due to the relaxation of export controls by the U.S. government. But it would still violate Sun's licensing.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
This is Sun's obnoxiousness showing with this one:
""" (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to
run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;"""
The bug author mentions the Java version of Python, but basicly it would make things like a distro shipping GCJ and Sun's java would be a licensing violation.
Obviously (in My eyes) Sun chooses this for two reasons:
A. To keep it's java runtime pure and functional. Avoids bug-inducing conflicts.
B. Help kill off Free software java implimentation.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
In Sun's License states that you can't modify any sort of copyright notices and whatnot. But by splitting the package up like Debian does they can't avoid modifying this stuff. Thusly Debian is violating Sun's distribution license.
Debian can ship non-free stuff in non-free obviously according to their bylaws.. but Debian doesn't have the authority to break OTHER people's licenses.
Sun says that this is OK and it's legal mumbo jumbo they can ignore. Debian's lawyer are basicly saying we can't violate Sun's licenses... ESPECIALLY without a discussion and you should pull the package from non-free until Sun fixes it's licensing so that Debian can use it legally.
This has happenned before with other software. Sun's license is shit and should be avoided by any sort of sane Linux distribution.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:5, Informative)
So the adding of the java packages to non-free looked just like a routine job, that ftp-masters handed the way they do with all non-free software. This time they even took more precausions, and asked the sun team if inclusion in the debian non-free archive was OK. And it seems that that is when the discussions on debian-flamware started.
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Debian is violating Sun's licensing is the issu (Score:3, Informative)
Those inanities are discussed in good depth at http://www.asty.org/articles/20010702pine.html [asty.org]. I highly recommend it as a good discussion of how bad licensing of "free" software can actually prevent it from being "open" and deliberately hinder people who want to work with it. Sun's licensing is similarly restrictive, with that caveat that Sun doesn't develop source code for Java. Washington University at least publishes their source code, even if you're not allowed to publish modifications of it under any circumstances.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:4, Informative)
The whole flamewar is quite one-sided: there is only a few people who support Java in non-free, and the whole rest opposes them. Too bad, the proponents are the DPL and more than one FTPmaster.
The current Java license is obviously unacceptable; the FAQ is ok. Too bad, the FAQ explicitely says that it doesn't bear any legal relevance, and, even worse, the license explicitely says that it can't be overridden by things like that FAQ. Thus, I'm afraid that Anthony Towns' argument that says "the FAQ makes the license fine" doesn't stand.
Fortunately, it appears that, albeit slowly, Sun actually exhibits a sliver of good will [debian.org]. Let's hope they'll change the license soon.
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2, Informative)
I was incorrect - please stop modding up. Java was not in non-free.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:5, Informative)
None of that happened this time. There may be good reasons for that, but stating that this case was handed just like any other sounds like a lie to me... but, like I said I'm not an expert, please enlighten me.
That's the error of this argument. (Score:5, Informative)
That's the beauty of aj's bluff: hell yeah, Debian can detach itself from SPI (after some constitution change) but, oh, it cannot be called Debian anymore (the trademark belongs to SPI), nor use the twirl mark (ah-ha), huh, and it cannot use SPI's servers and other equipment either. This would amount to the separatist cabal being exiled from Debian, really.
Re:Debian is violating Sun's licensing is the issu (Score:4, Informative)
That's FUD, pure and simple - the source is available for download right on the same page as the rest of the JDK download links [sun.com]. You have to agree to one of two licences and have a (free) Sun Download Center account to get it, but it *is* available.
Not nerve, naivite (Score:5, Informative)
There seems to be an assumption that being amorphous, legally speaking, is some kind of shield. It's not. It's an invitation to drop the shit-bomb and cover everybody in sight. The way this works is that when the legal successors to Sun in owneship of Java (see below) have a legal hissy fit, their lawyers sue everybody in sight. The the judge dismisses the suits against every tom dick and harry and makes them go after the legal entity, unless somebody has made a very bad mistake. That's why corporations exist. They're the equivalent of legal fortesses for the individuals in an enterprise.
What should happen then is if SPI wins, great, if it loses, the individuals can continue on under a new corporation because of the open source licenses. The problem is that this is very close to legal chicanery. You're not supposed to protect yourself with legal fictions. Thus for the protection to work, people have to cooperate -- which sometimes means not doing what they want right away. If they don't then they expose everybody directly involved with the project, and everybody transitively involved for good measure. That's what lawyers do when they're looking to make money for their clients: they throw shit on everything and see what is allowed to stick. Even if it doesn't stick, it's an unpleasant experience.
Success in any enterprise depends on predicting the future, which is a dicey proposition at best. The main reason you need to consult lawyers is to avoid what other people's lawyers will do to you if your prediction turns out false.
In this case, take Sun. They are not doing so well as a business for the last several years. They're losing money. Let's hope they'll turn it around. But one thing that happens if this keeps going is that the stockholders decide they'd better cash out; the large stockholders can't do this because they own too much. So they start looking at selling the whole company, or liquidating its assets to turn them into cash. Java is currently the property of Sun. Next year it could be the legal property of another company, and one thing that company buys is the right to sue over uses of that property.
Now imagine a company that has a lot of cash that would have a strategic interest in gaining a hold over Java licensees. It's not hard. Imagine what they could do with their power to sue licensees and copyright infringers, not just for the immediate cash value but for the strategic value. Are they going to be reaonable and just go after the ftp maintainers?
I've been through this kind of thing before. Without consulting me, my business associate, who had a majority interest, entered into a casual legal relationship with an outside party. The arrangment seems reasonable and we're all reasonable likable folks. Then the outside party got into some trouble of his own not related to us at all. Suddenly he becomes less reasonable and likable. Next thing his lawyers were suing everybody in sight. We are getting hit with lawsuits from people we have no relationship with, who are really going after him, but since their lawyer's already working on the case the marginal cost of a second third and fourth lawsuit is nil. At that point I was very glad to have a corporation between me and them to take the liability.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Informative)
Just because an ebuild is in the tree, doesn't mean that Gentoo distribute it. Gentoo simply allows the user to use it, much like any other distribution.
As soon as GLEP 23 gets put into place, this kind of confusion will disappear.
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, as far as Debian and the SPI are concerned, they *are* distinct, and the SPI isn't meant to get involved in the inner workings of Debian.
So perhaps both sides do have *some* merit, but the arrangement sounds pretty precarious to me, and before it all topples over I think it needs to be re-thought, either with Debian split out from SPI, or Debian developers understanding their obligations to the SPI.
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2, Informative)
From the mail lists, my impression (developers refused to discuss directly the contract with Sun under which they do port Java to Linux - they seem to be under NDA) was that most of the restrictions came from Sun, not from BlackDown people. Debian cannot give you BlackDown's port of Java, you have to go to BlackDown.org to get it: that's part of license.
And now it seems that Sun's JRE/JDK license has the same problem: it prohibit redistribution. Or as I have understood from the discussion, it attach conditions to redictribution, making Debian (and consequently SPI) legally liable for potential damages. Getting Sun's JDK from Debian and getting Sun's JDK from Sun are two _legally_ different things. As long as restrictions there, no way (even in non-free) such package can appear. Sun's people reacted and said they will fix the problem with license. We just need to wait couple of weeks to see what will come out of that.
P.S. Try to imaging your position as Debian Project Leader (DPL). You have responsibilities. In fact you are responsible for all decisions made during the time you are in power. Someone (behind your back) includes package with long list of restriction into the Debian. And then company whose work got included sues SPI for damages from illegal distribution of the software package. SPI would of course blame responsible - not the guy uploaded the package - but project leader, DPL. The Debian policies exist to avoid such situations - to avoid needless legal risks. You just can't ignore them, because you potentially jeopardize others.
Re:My favorite redundancy (Score:4, Informative)
I think you are a bit confused. At the time NT was release, most people didn't really know what a network was. My recollection was that NT stood for "New Technology". There are various other explanations for the NT designation, of course, some of which do not result in the redundant "technology"; see this article in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for details.
Re:Relationship between Debian and SPI? (Score:3, Informative)
SPI (Software in the Public Interest) is a non-profit organisation created to handle things for Debian that require a legal existence. Like, for instance, having legal staff available.