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."
Weird Coincidence! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Weird Coincidence! (Score:5, Funny)
She probably left you for a well-hung guy named Ubuntu, am I right?
A lot of nerve (Score:5, Insightful)
SPI wasn't trying to take the place of Debian's "governing body", it was simply trying to act as their legal representative.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:5, Insightful)
From the thread: "...if SPI are not willing to endorse the standard methods by which Debian operates -- having the archive administrators review licenses of new packages -- and the standard methods by which Debian reviews decisions -- public discussion with the original decision makers empowered to change their minds, and overview by the technical committee and the developers as a whole by general resolution, then we need to change Debian's relationship with SPI so that is not an issue."
This sounds to me like a fairly dangerous way to operate, unless the archive admins or others in the chain are qualified attorneys, and if Debian is effectively committing SPI to questionable legal obligations without consulting with them first, then SPI would be fools for not trying to get a handle on that. Resolving things technically is one thing, but playing fast and loose with licensing is a good way to find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Towns is coming off looking like a petulant child, IMHO.
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:A lot of nerve (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it? The main problem seems to be the indemnification clause. But Java is not the only package in the standard archive or in non-free that has such a clause. And it appears that nobody complained about these other packages.
Here is a quote from another message [debian.org] from the Anthony Towns (DPL) in that thread:
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument against mine was that the FAQ clarified this, which I found laughable. Seems like Sun is not the only one trying to pull this stunt.
My main problem is that a vague license means the entity with the best lawyers has a huge
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: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.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:5, Interesting)
It may well be that errors have been made, I just don't see how SPI can be so offended about being sidelined, when there wasn't a need to consult SPI anyway.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:2, Insightful)
The intelligence of the decision made by the Project Lead (Anthony Towns) is debatable. His control should not be -- and I think the primary point of his response was to clear up any "confusion" about SPI's power/control. When you are forced to have co
yur a retard (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:4, Interesting)
That's somewhat akin to saying that just because an accountant works for you, he should support your embezzlement. On the contrary, an accountant has legal responsibilities that go beyond doing whatever you say, and so does legal counsel. An attorney who didn't advise their client not to take legal advice from the opposing party would be not just a bad lawyer, but possibly personally liable, and could potentially lose their license to practice law.
As you say, if Debian chooses not to be represented by the SPI, that's their choice, but until SPI is told, they have responsibilities.
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:2)
Say you kill someone, but you want to plead not guilty but tell your lawyer all what happended. Then your lawyer goes on Larry King and tells the world that he thinks what you did
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't about reporting criminal wrongdoing at all, so that's not an issue. Its about whether a particular client and their legal representative can effectively work together, and, if the client is doing deals consulting the other sides lawyers and not their own, and can't be convinced that's not the right way to do busi
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:That's the error of this argument. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've witnessed my share of Free Software projects that fork over control issues, and it is never a pretty sight. Most projects never really recover. A fork of Debian would be especially problematic because quite a few Debian developers are the sort of license purists that would remove GFDL documentation from the distribution because it isn't free enough. So a splinter-Debian would not only have to come up with new infrastructure, a new name, new ftp sites, and all of the rest of the stuff that makes Debi
Control Freak (Score:5, Interesting)
I was part of a project that ended up blowing up. I was in SPI's position, just trying to keep everyone on the same page and help the person in control acheive goals. The person in control turned it into a control issue. It never was and I made every effort to make that clear. There was never any history to even suggest control issues. Finally, after much abuse, I left and so did several other people important to the project who knew what was going on. It turned out there were ideological problems, with the controller essentially wanting things one way while telling people things were to be another way in order to keep those people around.
Towns reminds me of the control freak of our own project. That was how it began - an irrational unwillingness to even hear what was being said and attributing everything as an attempt to control the project. Towns needs to step back and take a break. He needs some perspective. If there is anything he's not telling folks, he needs to come out with it. Because until that happens, anything he does is probably going to be to the detriment of Debian.
Goerzen shares the blame (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Not nerve, naivite (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the notion of 'intellectual property' for example...
Re:A lot of nerve (Score:3, Insightful)
SPI wasn't trying to take the place of Debian's "governing body", it was simply trying to act as their legal representative.
I concur - and I think the right thing to do now is to relax. Take a step back and take a deep breath. Then ask, "Does the SPI help Debian? Is SPI benefitted by it
non-free is not part of debian (Score:3, Interesting)
Non-free is distributed anyway (Score:2)
The "fight" is about licensing issues caused by Debian distributing java, as
discussed [debian.org] in the thread, as a follow-up to the comment linked by Slashdot.
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2)
I think you are wrong here. Could you provide a link to a message where anyone is discussiong moving java from non-free to free in debian? All discussion I read was about including java in non-free at all.
No, read the social contract [debian.org]:
We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these ar
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2)
Erg, you're completely right [debian.org] - I thought it was - I don't use Java, so hadn't really noticed!
No, read the social contract:
Yeah, I know what the social contract says, but semantic games about "debian" vs "debian system" aside, I think if I can download a
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2)
Yes, I know that's what (some/many) people think. And that's why I wanted to stress that non-free isn't really part of Debian.
Also, try an architecture other than i386, and suddenly non-free shrinks a lot, while the 'real' debian just stays what it is on i386. Then you'll see what is really pa
Re:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2)
I have been a steady debian user for several years, and is using both main, contrib, and non-free.
There is no way to aptitude install sun-java. Yuo have to build a package yourself. Since scripts are provided that largely automate this, this is fairly simple task. But you can't just get java from a Debian server and install it like any other package.
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
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:non-free is not part of debian (Score:2)
Debian DPL (Score:4, Funny)
This post brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
A flamewar on the Debian Mailing lists? (Score:3, Funny)
Politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm ok I'm kind of surprised that the anti-Debian folks haven't jumped on this already. So....anyway, I guess that I'll inject my opinion anyway
Personally, I'm really glad we do have Debian. They don't shy away from politics, and I think that's a good thing. Why? Well, the Free Software/Open Source ideals are inherently political things. To shut up and just allow stuff to happen is almost completely opposite to the movements themselves.
Sure, you can claim that discussions like this hamper development. Maybe they do (although I doubt it). You can claim Debian is behind the times compared to Ubuntu or Gentoo or even Slackware depending on what you value. But these things do need to be discussed.
It might seem like a cop-out, but the following quote really stands out in my mind: "Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics; you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.". RMS said that. I think it sums up the situation rather well.
not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing about using linux or writing OSS, requires me to jump on your political bandwagon.
I'm sure that open source is an ideal to you, but to most people it is not. It is software, and it is a business model to me and many others. It isn't inherently political to use it, and it's annoying when people try to drag the rest of us into their political battles.
Personally, as much as I use and love some open source software, I th
Re:not really (Score:2, Insightful)
No one's dragging you into anything. I'm tired of everytime someone states their support for the ideals of OSS and the general concept of copyleft, DRM-less, etc etc styled licensing, that everyone starts getting their panties in a bunch tha
Re:not really (Score:4, Insightful)
You espouse the political ideals as your own yet claim that your should not be dragged in to them. The very idea that a programmer could choose to distribute Free Software is in political danger (dmca/eucd, idea patents) and non-free software is being threatened at a political level (government purchasing rules primarily). If you
then you should consider how your vote might change the future of these "business models".In most areas of politics there are no Free Software implications. In fact never forget that things like the Debian Free Software Guidelines make absolutely explicit that the community can never try to cut out any group of people, even terrorists. Free Software is free for all whatever your political ideals, but do not think that this means Free Software is not political, it just limits it's politics to a few key areas which are required for it's continued existence.
Re:not really (Score:4, Insightful)
With all due respect, that's a load of crap.
Before white people and black people walked on the same land, one clan of white people killed and enslaved another group of white people in one land, and one tribe of black people killed and enslaved another tribe of black people in a different land. Race (or tribe, family, clan, gender) discrimination has existed for as long as there have been people and weapons that people could use on each other.
Before computers existed, there was copyright law, because people who made a living creating "intellectual property" had a right to control how the fruits of their mental labour were distributed, in order to ensure that they could benefit from their work.
Why should you have the right to enjoy? If I put a year's work into creating a beautiful garden, why should you automatically have the right to enjoy it? If I want to charge $10 per head admission, what's wrong with that? I deserve to be rewarded for my effort in creating the garden that you are enjoying.
Why should you have the right to inspect or study? If I spend years of my life trying to solve a problem, and during that year I manage to create a solution that nobody else has thought of, why should you get the benefit of that? Why can't I ask (or require) you to pay me to use that solution which I have worked so hard to create? And the only way I can be sure that people are fairly paying me for the use of my solution is for me to keep it secret.
Why should you have the right to share? That's got to be the silliest "right" I've heard of. If I spend a year of my time creating something, I'd like to be rewarded for that year of effort. Ideally, I'd like to be rewarded somewhere around $100,000 for that year of my life. I could try to sell one copy of my work for $100,000, but nobody wants it that much. So I want to sell 10,000 copies for $10. That way, I get rewarded, and 6000 people get to benefit from my work. Everyone's happy. But if you pay $10 for my work and then "share" it with the 9999 other people, I only get $10 for a year's work. That's good for your and your friends, but not good for me.
We live in a society where we exchange "money" for "things of value". As long as software is a "thing of value", people have a right to want to have "money" exchanged for it.
Re:not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Before computers existed, there was copyright law, because people who made a living creating "intellectual property" had a right to control how the fruits of their mental labour were distributed, in order to ensure that they could benefit from their work.
Stop right here, because the rest of your post is based on this assumption, and it's wrong.
Modern copyright (I use the adjective "modern" to distinguish it from the original formulation of copyright, whose primary purpose was censorship by the British Crown) was not created because people have any implicit or explicit right to benefit financially from their intellectual creations. In fact, the reason we have copyright law today is because enlightened government leaders felt that the *public* has a right to benefit culturally and intellectually from the work of authors, painters, composers, etc.
Let me say that again: The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public, not the copyright holder.
The reason society invests in granting and enforcing the inherently artificial monopoly that is copyright is to ensure that creations are distributed far and wide, so that they can spark other creations and enrich the public domain. Any benefits that accrue to the creator are incidental. All human intellectual creations are presumed to ultimately belong to the entire human race, which is why copyrights must expire and why the granted monopoly is full of holes (fair use, compulsory licensing, etc.).
That's the theory underlying US copyright law. The fact that the law on the books no longer reflects the theory very well is a problem we need to fix, not reinforce.
Re:Politics (Score:2, Interesting)
"If you're not turned on by politics, politics will turn on you..."
On the other hand... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:On the other hand... (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, as far as Debian and the SPI are concerned, th
Re:On the other hand... (Score:2)
When you hire legal council, do you expect it to go along with everything you say? I sure hope not. Their whole point is to tell you when you're full of crap. If an attorney just agrees with you and then watches you get into just as much trouble as you would have on your own, well, what's the point in that?
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
Re:So basically... (Score:5, Informative)
Debian Stable (Score:5, Funny)
Bet they're regretting not running stable on Andy Towns now.
java (Score:2, Funny)
A bit confused (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Debian is violating Sun's licensing is the issu (Score:5, Insightful)
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 does
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.
Re:Debian is violating Sun's licensing is the issu (Score:2)
Gentoo and the BSDs, with their source-based ports systems, can all include Pine natively; since patching and compilation are done on the end user's computer. Debian could {by adding depends: for the complete development toolchain, and patching and compiling the source during preinstall}, but won't be
A threat? (Score:2)
Great to see that the developers break free (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two types of OSS developers out there:
Example from debian-legal of a discussion about postgres: How could the situation be better exposed: "people (without any merits) looking for problems". That's what they are. All developers would reject a mailing list "debian-techadvice" where clueless people could make binding technical decisions, i.e. whether to use gcc 4.0 or 4.1.
One has to go through a notorious process to become a developer but it just needs an email client and a subscription to debian-legal in order to strangle 1500 developers. Time to change Debian back from a supermarket thing [kitenet.net] to one of the leaders of technology. Congrats Anthony!
Re:Great to see that the developers break free (Score:2)
Religion? Would you really claim Saint IGNUcius [stallman.org] considers free software a religion?
(He certainly don't consider "OSS" anything but a detraction.)
Re:Great to see that the developers break free (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, inexperienced people bringing attention to potential problems! What a hoot.
Next thing you know Debian will let people report bugs in software without first completing a CS degree and providing a source diff that patches the problem! Imagine the nightmare such plebi
Re:Great to see that the developers break free (Score:5, Insightful)
1) People who disagree with you are zealots. Only zealots can possibly disagree with your obviously rational and well thought out opinions.
2) People who hold other values then you are doing it because they think it's a religion. You (and the people who agree with you 100%) are the only rational people on the planet.
Re:Great to see that the developers break free (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason that Ubuntu has success on the desktop is that they're trying to be exactly what Debian is not - Debian on the desktop. Almost nothing about Debian is desktop-oriented... "unstable, testing, stable" "hmm, I wa
Re:Great to see that the developers break free (Score:2)
Re:Great to see that the developers break free (Score:2)
Including java without discussion was stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Also this email is stupid. Debian needs SPI and when people start suggesting otherwise that means they are taking a vacation in retardo-land.
Here's the other thing. When I heard Debian had included java into their distro, I was like, "Wow. That must be a really improved license. Debian doesn't just include any old license into the distro." But a week later, I learned that 3 debian leaders had rammed java through without any discussion and really the license was very questionable. Debian is basically going off the informal Sun FAQ when they included. Does anyone even know that the FAQ was written by a lawyer or was it written by an intern in the PR dept?
Re:Including java without discussion was stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Including java without discussion was stupid (Score:2)
Yes, it was written by their lawyers, and was intended to clarify those aspects about the license the ftp-masters found troubling. Read the various posts about how java was accepted for details.
A major problem was the large disclaimer declaring the FAQ not legally binding. This appears to be a goof on the part of SUN, and the latest version clarifies this disclaimer considerably (see DLJ FAQ 1.2 [java.net]).
Hmm, yes... (Score:2)
...well.. I think I speak for most of us when I say, "I'm going to continue using Ubuntu."
I love Debian, and I love Free software, but sometimes a guy just wants to run Java. You know what I'm saying? I think the distribution of Java would help linux immensely, and I'm all for seeing my beloved OS reach new levels of convenience and usability. Only way to oust Windows, you know...
Re:Hmm, yes... (Score:2)
Buying software (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Buying software (Score:2)
Not many people consult their lawyer before robbing a bank.
Just because people don't routinely consult a lawyer about it does not mean it is right or wrong to do. (Or legal or illegal.)
The difference here is that we aren't talking about a person, we're talking about a group. They have a responsibility to themselves and everyone that downloads Debian. That responsiblity is to make sure that everythin
There's a riot in the bazaar! (Score:5, Funny)
Quick! Let's hide in the cathedral!
Well that explains that. (Score:3, Insightful)
see: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186539&
I guess they "forgot" to check with the lawyers...
It feels that DD and Debian-legal is out of sync (Score:4, Insightful)
But in this case, I *think* it is totally overblown and feels like that Debian-legal just want to say big f12#$%k off to Java usage in Debian - non-legal arguments like "I don't use non-free", "there are ALMOST working free software implementation in main", etc says almost everything about discusssion - it is not about LEGAL situation, but about fears that if Java will be aviable in non-free and will be supported by DD, CLASSPATH and other Java projects will slowly loose momentum they achieved so far now (Again, it is just my thougts after reading almost half of thread).
I can understand both sides, but thinking "We will get free implementation, we don't need stinkin Sun official implementation" sounds like too much dreaming. Let's be honest - it is simply not possible. Oracle won't use CLASSPATH, they will insist to use JRE. Other software will too. Yes, there will be desktop apps which will run on Free Software versions just fine - like Eclipse, lot of different small aps, but for enterprise it will be big NO-NO.
Re:It feels that DD and Debian-legal is out of syn (Score:5, Insightful)
A lawyer should be consulted on a license- NOT a developer. It's a legal matter, not a coding matter.
There's a legal gotcha on the Java license that SPI, being the legal interface for the Debian
project, that if things go wrong, they'd have to absorb and deal with. Without SPI, each of
the devs involved with the project would be held individually liable for potentially millions
of dollars each (And that is exactly what is possible with the new licensing from Sun on Java).
Do you now see WHY devs shouldn't be the final call on a license?
Your attorney does not control you. (Score:4, Insightful)
I work for a corporation. In my position, I frequently negotiate deals with software vendors, and this includes negotiating the contract terms. I am not a lawyer, however, so I work with our corporate attorneys in negotiating these contracts. They are responsible for understanding and explaining the legal ramifications of the contract terms, and I am responsible for understanding and explaining the business objectives of why we are trying to license the software.
Indemnification in particular is often a sticky subject in these negotiations. We usually get the indemnification clause that makes our lawyers happy, but in rare cases we do not.
In the end, however, it is notthe lawyer's job to decide whether or not we accept the terms of any contract. It is their job to advise me (and my managers) what risk we are taking with any given contract. It is then up to management to decide of that risk outweighs the business benefits we are trying to seek.
If somehow the Debian developers have gotten themselves in the position of needing permission from their attorney to sign a contract, then something has gotten seriously screwed up in their relationship. That would be like the CEO of McDonalds needing permission from some random fry cook to enter into a legal agreement. The attorney is to be an advisor, not a decision maker.
Re:Your attorney does not control you. (Score:5, Insightful)
SPI is not a legal firm full of lawyers. SPI is a corporation that provides the legal entity that can own property & purchase services for the Debian developers. SPI is the entity that OWNS the name "Debian", the servers the files are hosted on, and that contracts the attorneys that protect Debian developers. (Without knowing the twisty history, I wouldn't be surprised if Debian wasn't the project that caused SPI to be created.)
In human terms, SPI is Debian's legal guardian. SPI is legally responsible for Debian's debts, obligations, and will be the one against the wall if Debian does something bad. However Debian admins can agree to legal terms and contracts which put SPI on the spot.
I quote one of the posts: SPI projects shouldn't be taking advice from Sun's attorneys. We should be taking advice from SPI's attorneys.
In other words: "don't take legal advice from the attorneys who may be suing you tomorrow, especially when those attorneys may be suing you, me, and two dozen other people in the process."
Darn good advice.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Maintainer: Matthias Klose
Ubuntu distributes the same packages that are in Debian in the multiverse component(? section? archive? what is the correct term here anyway?).
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
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:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
These are not small matters: supporting such packages is a security and software management problem for Debian and other distributions, who often haven't included the Java packages for exactly this reason. Fedora Core 5, for example, seems to have discarded the jdk and jre (or whatever they're called this week) that they included in older OS releases. And Sun has been doing weirdness like slapping their installable RPM inside an executable binary, then renaming the basic packages, then insisiting on jumping through licensing agreement hoops simply to download the software. It's not appropriate in Linux or other open source systems, and is a compelling reason for extensive development of genuinely open source Java software, such as the gcc/Java projects.
Sun is duplicating, badly, what Adobe attempted to do with Postscript in creating a "public" but heavily licensed standard that only they can control the standards for. It's understandable, but is helping actually sideline Sun's particular Java version in favor of more robust ones such as IBM's, and fostering the same sort of open source replacement that ghostscript became for Postscript, and with gaining popularity of the open source version to the point where Sun will want to come up with a new software to license, much as Adobe is dumping Postscript and proceeding to PDF wherever feasible.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Well, then you better go talk to Sun, as Java is their product under their license and if you are being strip searched and violated it is by the Sun legal team.
And, oddly enough, that's exactly the step that Debian took, although they might have been wise to allow the persons legally responsible for certain terms of the license to be the ones to do the talking.
KFG
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
You're only puzzled because you don't "get" open distributions like Debian. There are thousands of people working on it at any given time, from kernel packagers to people watching the bug tracker. Among that crowd, quite a few of them are passionate about legal issues and qualified to argue them. You're hearing tho
Thank God for Debian (Score:5, Insightful)
First, without Debian, Ubuntu would be nothing. More importantly, as long as Debian exists, we know that we have access to an unencumbered, workable, and complete operating system / userspace. Should everything else hit the fan, we know there's still Debian.
Plus, stable's great for servers.
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:3, Insightful)
Er, leading distribution of what ?
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:2)
Really ? I had no idea...
</SARCASM>
What I meant, was exactly which aspect of the Linux marketplace is Debian "leading" in ?
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideology may not be practical, but practicality without ideology has no direction.
Where would OpenBSD be without the likes of Theo de Raadt?
Where would open source be without the FSF?
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:2)
In the center of a group of friends?
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:2)
The FSF has nothing to do with 'Open Source' and plenty to do with Free Software (and yes, there's a difference)
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:3, Insightful)
I've simply got tired of all this ideologic stuff.
Folks, this is coming from a guy who wrote:
Just imagine that if every application and every game were coded cross-platform everybody just could go into any shop and buy any computer they like. [sf.net]
Tired of ideologic stuff indeed.
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:2)
"Wouldn't it be great if everything worked in a way which is most convenient for me"
a sentiment I strongly agree with by the way, with the obvious substitution of me for "me".
What?? (Score:2, Insightful)
A small group of people has, it seems, in secret put Debian into a very dangerous legal position, without consulting the people who have the relevent legal expertise.
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at SCO or any patent claim. There's maybe 1% or less of your code that is possibly in violation of someone else's thing. And yet it threatens your entire product.
The following scenario is unlikely - but if it ever does come to pass, we will all thank whatever gods we believe in for Debian to be there and for having been as strict as they are:
Imagine MS or possibly a small group of likewise evil, selfish companies whose only way of "winning" in the marketplace is to destroy their opponents. Imagine them banding together and using a combination of software patents, DRM and DMCA lawsuits and a couple copyright disputes to drag Linux into an endless legal battle. Imagine that different from the SCO they can somehow construct a case that at least appears solid enough to a judge that Redhat and SuSE and whoever you have get slapped with a preliminary injunction. Maybe it's just 2 packages that are a problem, but the judge orders a stop to the distribution until the entire thing can be resolved. You don't think MS would have much haste in getting it resolved, would you?
This or any other scenario like it wouldn't mean the end of Linux - you'd still be able to get your copy from some FTP in Sweden or China, but it would bring Linux progress into the enterprise market to a halt.
Unless there is a Debian that can point to documentation and lawyer papers and to the fact that they always acted with so much dilligence that it is very certain none of their stuff ever got tainted.
Re:Fighting ideologic wars (Score:2)
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.