On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 12:53:55PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 07:13:10AM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > > > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > severity 370296 normal > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > I think that is your interpretation. The paragraph cited never talks > > > > about "the exact same file". It's an archive of some form, which is > > > > unpacked and repacked in the deb format. > > > > > > > > - no files in the archive is distributed modified. > > > > - all files in the archive are complete. completeness is guaranteed > > > > by package dependencies, except for the files declared as > > > > optional in the README. > > > > > > In the README, there is the statement > > > > > > The limited set of files from the JDK listed below may be included > > > in vendor redistributions of the J2SE Runtime Environment. They > > > cannot be redistributed separately, and must accompany a JRE > > > distribution. > > > > > > This does not seem to allow a separate JDK package, since the JRE > > > would not _always_ accompany the JDK. Later, the README says > > > > In Debian, a JRE is always accompanying a JDK thru the dependencies, so > > this point is moot. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > That is the the point. It is only through dependencies. I can still run > > wget > http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/non-free/s/sun-java5/sun-java5-jdk_1.5.0-07-1_i386.deb > > and have the JDK without the JRE. I can even install it, using the > appropriate options to dpkg. I could easily imagine a confused user > doing exactly that. That is why it is necessary to get a > clarification from Sun that enforcing completeness only through > package dependencies is ok.
The JRE accompanies the JDK on the mirrors -- we even use dependencies to ensure that through normal usage a user cannot end up with only the JDK bits without the JRE. The license doesn't require that we totally prevent a knowledgable user from getting only part of the files. It is my and Sun's interpretation that employing Debian dependencies is adequately addressing this requirement. See for example: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00151.html: * Tom Marble (Sun): | * Don Armstrong (Debian): | > We're currently splitting the package into pieces; and presumably the | > software is unpacked or otherwise modified from the form that Sun has | > actually distributed to us. I don't know whether Sun has approved this | > or not, but if they haven't, this seems to pose a problem. | | The JRE and JDK each have been split into different Debian | packages to best fit with Debian Policy. Partly this work is | an innovative approach to reduce redundancy (e.g. have the JDK depend | on the JRE), partly to refactor architecture independent and dependent | components and partly to better integrate with Debian (e.g include the | -font package giving defoma integration *only* if that font is not already | on the system and managed by defoma). The numerous symlinks are intended | to give backwards compatibility with the JAVA_HOME (one directory | tree) approach that many users are used to (and certain executables | depend upon for compatibility). This clarifies that Sun is aware and approving of splitting up the packages. > <snip> > > > > We did check with Sun that the resulting packaging conforms to the > > > > distribution terms. > > > > > > If you have a binding statement from Sun that it is OK to enforce > > > completeness only through package dependencies, then it would be great > > > if you could put that in the copyright file. > > > > This has meanwhile happened. > > Where? The DLJ FAQ does not address this. You're right, I was confused; this particular point is not the FAQ. It'd be nice if it were, though, something I'd encourage Sun to work on. It remains my position that Sun has provided by other means adequate clarification to how they understand the README requirement, and that Debian complies to it. The requirement is not the license, so I don't think it's a problem it isn't in the FAQ, even though as said it'd be nice if it were. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
