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 Sun's position.
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. The response that Debian can drop Java is irrelevant. Dropping Java would not retroactively remove Debian's indemnification liablity. The response that the FAQ protects Debian is plain wrong. The FAQ on its face states that it does not modify the license. The response that conversations with Sun protect Debian is naive. By now the "small cabal" would have posted any written promises from Sun if it had them. Anything less is worthless. The response that Debian has no assets to be lost is nice in theory but absurd in practice. The "small cabal" has given potential adversaries an opening to file non-frivolous lawsuits against Debian, Debian mirrors, and Debian contributors. Potential adverseries include successors in Sun's interest. In real world courts, such lawsuits could result in significant damage to Debian in particular and FOSS in general. 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 legal opinions from counsel (if any) should forthwith be posted to debian-legal. --Mike Bird -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
