On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > The difference would be that while you would act against the original > author's wishes if you were to put warez on your server, the same isn't > true about Sun Java. In fact, Sun explicitely asked us to please > distribute their software. I'd say that accounts to something, and that > a Judge who feels different isn't worth his job.
I already admitted that the example doesn't cut it. But again most discussion is about the "allowance to distribute". I don't see a problem with this. But I see a problem with the idemnify clause. That's why I tried this example because it doesn't help if you stop distributing java if you are already in a bind to idemnify Sun. > Try as I might, and considering how lawyers and judges are human beings > and not automatons, I can't see any realistic scenario in which we could > be sued and lose a case in relation to this license. Do you? Yes, I do, but not for distributing it. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
