To all, for who freedom is important!

To all, for who freedom is important! You, who is sitting in front of your monitors! Everyone, who is reading these lines! You can just look through them or you can read each word thoroughly. It doesn’t matter in which language you are reading these words. Just read them. Think. Make up your mi

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Indeed, they will bear the *primary* liability. However if legal action > > is taken against them or our mirror operators because of their decision, > > the whole distribution process m

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 22:56 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 22:38 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : > > Given this legal background of yours, could you please help by using that > > to improve the licence, instead of just complaining about how others > > handled it? Please

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > This is the whole point of the discussion. > > Not that I can see. Your preceding post focused on the *who* and the *how* > of the decision, *not* on the what. This is all entangled. Had this decision been taken in a transparent

Re: Bacula license (was Re: Help Selecting License for Bacula Documentation

>> On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 08:17:53PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote: >>> John, could you or someone else summarize a bit where we are assuming >>> the >>> following? >>> >>> - I delete the anti-abuse paragraph from the LICENSE entitled: >>> "Termination for IP or Patent Action". >>> >>> - I change t

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:25:35AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 17:03 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit : > > No, I'm acknowledging that the ftpmasters have no obligation to do as *you* > > say. The ftp-masters aren't the ones trying to tell other people what to do > > in

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 12:34:00PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > In that case, ftpmasters accepted it, end of discussion. You HAVE to > accept decisions of delegates within Debian, that's how we can effectively > work. But that means that ALL delegates have to be either elected or appointed by

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > No I don't answer to "shut up". I answer to stop now because Anthony Tows > responded to all the questions and give a precise course of action on how > we can continue improving the situation concerning the java licensing. So he sh

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez > on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My > prior action would still get me sued, doesn't it? And no, just saying > I thought it was okay, does

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On 5/22/06, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given the word "estoppel" only has meaning in jurisdictions deriving > from English common law, I think it'd be silly to assume it works the > way you think it does in any of the other jurisd

Re: Revised Bacula license

Kern Sibbald wrote: >> John Goerzen wrote: >>> Can you all take a look at the below new license? I took a quick look >>> and it looks good to me. >> This revised license looks DFSG-free to me. One note, though: >> >>> Linking: >>> Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, >

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit : > And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I > as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even > if I ask, but instead people are just told to shut up. Even people in Oaxtepec have lear

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On 5/22/06, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez > on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My > prior action would still get me sued, does

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Le Lun 22 Mai 2006 01:46, Steve Langasek a écrit : > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:06:42AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > I personally thinks it hurts our users, and as a secondary effect, > > us. Beeing distributable is a property that should not be depends > > upon the time, the color of your ha

Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ

Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 21:16 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : > > I find it very sad that people can get this impression after coming to > > Debconf. > > Realize that sometimes in e-mail it is difficult to convey subtlety or > nuanced meaning. Even though my experience with Debian is only three > y

Re: Against DRM 2.0

Don Armstrong wrote: Debian requires everything that we distribute to be Free. See Social Contract Clause One:[1] 1. Debian will remain 100% free We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guide

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Heya, Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Java flamewar] > DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any > other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special > treatment? > > Isn't this a discrimination against all other packages? :-) ACK. This is the

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:29:05AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 10:50 +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez > > on my server I couldn't become legal again by just removing it. My > > prior action would still g

Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ

Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > If Debian is so important to you then why do you stop at saying > that I am mistaken instead of going on to educate me on a project > you care so much about? Some Debian Developers (DDs) are essentially mercenary. Others are also troubled by the events of debconf

Re: Against DRM 2.0

Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Max, did you know that Debian requires *everything*, not just > software, to be DFSG-free? [...] Debian distributes only software, not hardware or hardcopy. Of course, this "what is software" debate is exactly why the DFSG were changed to say work not softwa

Re: Revised Bacula license

John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> forwarded: > Linking: > Bacula may be linked with any libraries permitted under the GPL, > or with any non-GPLed libraries, including OpenSSL, that are > required for its proper functioning, providing the source code of > those non-GPLed libraries is non-proprietar

Re: [OT] Re: Sun responds to questions on the DLJ

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le dimanche 21 mai 2006 à 21:16 -0500, Tom Marble a écrit : >> sophistication in Debian technology. My point here is that I have >> developed the impression that Debian is more than technology... > > This is getting more and more true, and this is the

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] >license agreement; and (f) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun >and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, >settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) >incurred in connection with any claim, lawsui

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 10:50:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 04:04:37PM -0500, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Fears are unfounded, we can at any time terminate the license by removing > > java! > > Again this logic doesn't seem to work for me. If I was offering warez on >

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his > statement is legally not binding and the license says you are not > allowed to offer it. Then yo

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:03:25PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 22 mai 2006 à 10:46 +0200, Michael Meskes a écrit : > > And I'm pissed of that so much seems to happen behind the scenes and I > > as a normal developer who did not go to Mexico do not get the info even > > if I ask, but i

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 11:22:25AM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > Heya, > > Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [Java flamewar] > > DPL, I wonder Why the Sun-Java package is not handled the same as any > > other package. What makes it so special that it deserves special > > treatm

Re: Revised Bacula license

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:58:51AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > Yes, I understood that. I added that clause at José's request to satisfy a > > Debian requirement, and if it is not really needed or no longer needed by > > Debian, I would probably prefer to remove it for exactly the reason you > >

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their > > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his > > statement is legally no

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

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 so

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:39:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 12:35:41PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > You are told by a programmer that you are allowed to offer their > > software on your server, but the programmer also tells you that his > > statement is legally no

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 02:43:31PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:35:33PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > 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

Re: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 MJ Ray a écrit : [...] > A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. > Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. > I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. A function that is used to call a run

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 03:34:39PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > What, prey tell, does Debian do in relation to the non-free archive that > does not involve "distributing"? Sorry for not being precise enough. I was talking about the indemnify clause that worries me. And you cannot get rid of thi

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 08:34:22AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > > the project by not consulting you first is so much bullshit, because *they* > > are the ones who bear the primary liability from distributing these > > packages, and other developers (as opposed to mirror operators) bear none at >

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:08:17AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > By reading your email, I feel you are acknowledging the fact the > ftp-masters cabal (I can't name it otherwise after seeing their behavior > IRL) is treating other developers as second-class contributors who > should just do as th

Re: CDBS documentation

Coin, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A changelog is not a copyright notice. A changelog doesn't indicate > who holds the copyright on the work, when the work was created, under > which license the work has been released under, nor does it disclaim > warranty. [The latter two aren't

Re: Sun Java available from non-free

On Sun, 21 May 2006 15:55:53 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > They didn't ask you because Debian is not a democracy and random > opinions on this decision *don't* matter. What is it, then? A constitutional monarchy? -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)

Re: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

> > A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. > > Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. > > I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. > > A function that is used to call a runtime, compiler, etc of the Java(tm) > language! > > Java? i

Re: Against DRM 2.0

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think that DRM-inhibiting licences are possible, but the s/are/that follow the DFSG are/ #oops! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

sharpmusique in Debian

Hi, Is there any legal reason why sharpmusique is not in Debian, given that multiple .deb packages already exist? Charles -- Our fortune Is your Shaven face It's our best Advertising space Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1953/our_fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Distributor License for Java: External Commentary

Hi all, Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun Microsystems: "JDK on GNU/Linux: Something Wonderful" 16 May 2006 Responds that "it's OK to distribute along with GCJ, GNU/Classpath and so on - that was one of the e

Re: Against DRM 2.0

On 5/21/06, Max Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Max p.s. Software is not music. Software is not visual art. Software is a code, a literary work (and Berna Convention consider software as a literary work). So software patents are unlogicall. There are two prevaling views of software whic

Re: Bug#365408: [POLICY-PROPOSAL] Drop java*-runtime/compiler, create classpath-jre/jdk and java-jre/jdk

Arnaud Vandyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > MJ Ray a €crit : > [...] > > A virtual package name is a functional label, not a product name. > > Java is the name of an island and a natural language too. > > I'm surprised if Sun can prevent use of a word in this way. > > A function that is used to call a