Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] as we've just seen, people (both people from debian-legal and
> elsewhere) do seem to think that debian-legal is or ought to be where
> these decisions are taken.
Who did that? I must have missed a few posts.
FWIW, I think that debian-legal is a useful res
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:15:12PM -0500, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > And hi to everyone from /.!
> > http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing
> > along
> > at home.
> If you wanted to avoid publicity, no
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:07:07AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> So what am I trying to do?
> Most importantly, make sure that SPI and Debian aren't exposed to
> serious legal risks.
Then why don't you contact Greg and the SPI board yourself?
> As I've said already, I don't want SPI to be involved
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:18:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> > I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> > like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> > on d-l?
> Actually, I think t
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:13:16PM +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> > > [...] If people have
> > > weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> > > that's entirely their choice.
> > Yes, that pack
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:42:01 -0700 (PDT) Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument
> > that licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think
> > that this revised FAQ preamble allows people to
Trading alert!
Just do yourself a favor and watch A B S Y tomorrow morning, and
don't say we didn't tell you...
Talk about flying under the radar? Isn't that what we look for?
Trade Date : Monday, June 7th, 2006
Company Name : AbsoluteSKY
Ticker : A B S Y
Price : $0.95
11month Target : $2 -
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given the above link point to your post, you can only blame yourself for
> its content.
It's not strictly necessary to bitch about Anthony's actions at every
opportunity. If you disagree with his course of actions, perhaps
dropping him a private mail
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:46:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> And hi to everyone from /.!
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/06/06/07/047204.shtml for those playing along
> at home.
If you wanted to avoid publicity, not announcing the inclusion of 'Sun
Java' on debian-devel-announce would hav
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> > licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> > revised FAQ preamble allows people t
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes a
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ license creators put texts like:
> > >
> > > "the use or distrib
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:45:27AM -0700, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an ups
"John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
First of all, corporate winds can change. But really my point is not
that SPI should have rejected this license. My point is that SPI should
have been consulted about the indemnification so that we could get the
advi
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 03:43, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Mike Bird writes ("Re: Sun Java available from non-free"):
> > 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 indemnifyi
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 09:00, Mike Bird wrote:
> Hi Thijs,
>
> The DLJ is governed by California law and controlling US federal
> law [DLJ (14)]. Under the explicit terms [DLJ (14)] and under
> the parole evidence rule the judge cannot consider anything other
> than the literal pedantic terms of
"John Goerzen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
is that the above is
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result in
> > only Sun's Java to break rather than a whole bunch of applications
> > (so they would most likel
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:33AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> > suggested by the Developer's Reference.
>
> Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
Right, so I was mistake
Jeremy Hankins writes ("Non-DD's in debian-legal"):
> I'm not sure I understand this part, though. Do you think that folks
> like myself, who are not DD's, should not participate in the discussions
> on d-l?
Actually, I think they should not participate, in general.
The arguments that are had on
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
> announcement:
>
> SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> STANDARD EDITION DEVELOPER KIT ("JDK" - THE "SOFTWARE") TO YOU ONLY
Yes, b
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> First, I don't believe that SPI has ever granted anyone the ability to
> enter into legally-binding agreements to indemnify (which means to use
> our resources to defend) third parties. I may be mistaken, though.
> Could you plea
OK, I'll chime in. I just hope I'm not making matters worse.
First, obligatory disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a Debian
developer, I'm not a new maintainer applicant either. And I'm certainly
not going to make demands on anybody. I'm a resident of Norway, so that
is the legal system I am
John Goerzen writes ("Re: Sun Java available from non-free"):
> Also, I should add that agreeing to a license that commits SPI to
> indemnify Sun
Who is purporting to commit SPI to indemnifying Sun ?
AFAICT ftpmasters are indemnifying Sun. This is silly of them but
probably not actually fatal.
Mike Bird writes ("Re: Sun Java available from non-free"):
> 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.
This is obviously not possible.
Debian is not a le
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, not at all. The text clearly says that we are to idemnify Sun in for
> anything anyone could sue them over while doing something involving "the
> use or distribution of (our) Operating System", except if something
> happened "not under (our) direction or co
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Why do I need a case where some other application breaks?
> > The indemnification is for problems in the Operating System,
> > not only for Sun Java.
>
> Right. And what's wrong with that? Why do you
On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely on the statements in the FAQ
> sufficiently.
I don't get it.
On 6/7/06, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Sure. SPI owns many of the machines that Debian owns. If any of these
>> machines are being used to distribute this software, as I think is
>> likely,
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn all
> > > the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee liable
> > > for the effects of everything in our operating system?
> >
> > If y
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> > They do not need to.
>
> No, there's no absolute *need* to do that,
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 18:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:08:40PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > > If you are not misguided, then why DLJ
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 08:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > and it would seem that for any case where the effects are much wider
> > > than just Debian, it can reasonably be argued that the problems are,
> > > not under our control, which would free us from the burden of having to
> > > idemnify
Wouter Verhelst writes:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:38:55PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > > > seen repeated claims that w
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:05:20PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think these are all very reasonable statements. Not being an
> ftp-master, it's not really my decision to make, but my personal opinion
> is that the above is good advice and the closer we can make the
> relationship between SPI's l
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
> > > in only Sun's Java to break rather
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > Nobody was suggesting that, and I fail to understand why it is in
> > anyone's interests for you to ratchet up the heat on this issue
> > another notch by making remark
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Cool. Where is this effect of sections 2(f)(i) and 14 disputed? I've
> > seen repeated claims that we're not liable for Sun's changes and downstream
> > changes, but not upstream changes of parts of
Le mercredi 07 juin 2006 à 14:04 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit :
> I don't understand why, as SPI President, you'd bring up concerns
> regarding SPI's legal position in the middle of a thread on -devel and
> -legal, without having discussed it on spi-board, having consulted SPI's
> attorney as to th
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:04PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> > The first paragraph of the license linked to by the original
> > announcement:
> >
> > SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. ("SUN") IS WILLING TO LICENSE THE JAVA PLATFORM
> > ST
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:59:02AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is definitely wrong. SPI should not be involved in licence
> approval. Firstly, because licence approval is often a political
> decision for Debian. And secondly because SPI is not the licencee and
> it is very important for thi
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 04:30, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > What I cannot imagine is a case where an upstream change would result
> > > in only Sun's Java to break rather
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, it doesn't say that: it says "If in doubt, send mail to -legal". It
> doesn't say "if the license is doubtful", which is a different matter
> entirely.
We've been told "both James and Jeroen extensive contact with
Sun to ensure that the tricky clauses were
Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> debian-legal, OTOH, claims that not only is the stock MIT/X11 licence
> 'non-free', but 'it is impractical to work with such software'.
I don't believe that those claims are consensual on debian-legal. The
MIT/X11 licence is frequently recommended by participant
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:04:18PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:35:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 12:02:16PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> > > > should be, and argu
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:34 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Really, how is that any relevant? Can you come up with a real-life
> scenario (as in, something which actually occurred) where a change to,
> say, glibc or something similar made some other application break in
> such a way that it would
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The guideline to ask debian-legal is not enforced by policy, but
> suggested by the Developer's Reference.
Please don't confuse things by introducing the DevRef to this.
An instruction to mail debian-legal about doubtful copyrights is in policy
s2.3. It is a
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:34, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns
> >
> > > > Is there even any dispute that the DLJ indemnity seeks to overturn
> > > > all the "no warranty" statements in debian and leave the licensee
> > > > liabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns [...]
[snip]
> 4. there's already working java in main; and
Partly/somewhat/mostly working.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racis
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:41:27AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anthony Towns
> > [...] If people have
> > weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to,
> > that's entirely their choice.
>
> Yes, that package maintainer may choose to ignore all of policy. It's
> entirely my c
Anthony Towns
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug)=20
>
> That's mistaken. debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a
> decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there
> is absolutely
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In linux.debian.legal MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The package maintainer did not ask debian-legal (serious bug) and I'm
> They do not need to.
No, there's no absolute *need* to do that, or to follow any of the other
directions in debian policy, but it's
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 05:11, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 11:34:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Anthony Towns [...]
> >
> > > And people are welcome to hold that opinion and speak about it all they
> > > like, but the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license
> > >
53 matches
Mail list logo
