Slashdot Mirror
Debian DPL Threatens to Leave SPI Over Sun Java
An anonymous reader writes "A three-week-long flame war in debian-devel over the new Java Distribution License has culminated in Anthony Towns, the newly elected Debian Project Lead, offering to separate Debian from its legal representative, SPI. This came as a response to SPI member John Goerzen's objections to the Debian project's interaction with Sun's legal team around the new JDL license without review from SPI's lawyers."
SPI wasn't trying to take the place of Debian's "governing body", it was simply trying to act as their legal representative.
You mean unlike the non-fundamentalist distros like Fedora, Gentoo and Ubunto who have decided thatSUNs Java is not free enough to distribute and hence won't do it at all?
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
First, without Debian, Ubuntu would be nothing. More importantly, as long as Debian exists, we know that we have access to an unencumbered, workable, and complete operating system / userspace. Should everything else hit the fan, we know there's still Debian.
Plus, stable's great for servers.
You are a target user of the software authors, such as Sun in this case. Debian is, correctly, noticing that the licensing of Sun does not permit them to distribute software they way they normally do it, with intact and compilable source and automatic compilation as needed.
These are not small matters: supporting such packages is a security and software management problem for Debian and other distributions, who often haven't included the Java packages for exactly this reason. Fedora Core 5, for example, seems to have discarded the jdk and jre (or whatever they're called this week) that they included in older OS releases. And Sun has been doing weirdness like slapping their installable RPM inside an executable binary, then renaming the basic packages, then insisiting on jumping through licensing agreement hoops simply to download the software. It's not appropriate in Linux or other open source systems, and is a compelling reason for extensive development of genuinely open source Java software, such as the gcc/Java projects.
Sun is duplicating, badly, what Adobe attempted to do with Postscript in creating a "public" but heavily licensed standard that only they can control the standards for. It's understandable, but is helping actually sideline Sun's particular Java version in favor of more robust ones such as IBM's, and fostering the same sort of open source replacement that ghostscript became for Postscript, and with gaining popularity of the open source version to the point where Sun will want to come up with a new software to license, much as Adobe is dumping Postscript and proceeding to PDF wherever feasible.
They should hire you to write the summaries instead.
Philosophy.
It matters to the ideologues to set forth the definitions of Open Source. It matters to the people to called their OS Debian GNU/Linux rather than just Linux. It matters to the people who continue to call their OS Debian GNU/Linux.
Ideology may not be practical, but practicality without ideology has no direction.
Where would OpenBSD be without the likes of Theo de Raadt?
Where would open source be without the FSF?
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
I've simply got tired of all this ideologic stuff.
Folks, this is coming from a guy who wrote:
Just imagine that if every application and every game were coded cross-platform everybody just could go into any shop and buy any computer they like.
Tired of ideologic stuff indeed.
It's pretty obvious that discussing java's license was going to be slow and painful and so it's also obviously why people would want to short circuit the whole process. But once you think about it for 5 seconds that's a really stupid plan. People are still going to discuss it but now they're going to be more pissed off.
Also this email is stupid. Debian needs SPI and when people start suggesting otherwise that means they are taking a vacation in retardo-land.
Here's the other thing. When I heard Debian had included java into their distro, I was like, "Wow. That must be a really improved license. Debian doesn't just include any old license into the distro." But a week later, I learned that 3 debian leaders had rammed java through without any discussion and really the license was very questionable. Debian is basically going off the informal Sun FAQ when they included. Does anyone even know that the FAQ was written by a lawyer or was it written by an intern in the PR dept?
You have to make nice to anyone doing you a favor for free, that includes lawyers.
As much as I dislike these legal discussions, I see the point. Debian is a kind of afraid of all the DRM, IP lawsuit, patent law and other bullshit and tries to stear well clear of it. Debian people realize that these things don't hit you in isolated spots - they're like dum-dum bullets, they expand inside the body.
Look at SCO or any patent claim. There's maybe 1% or less of your code that is possibly in violation of someone else's thing. And yet it threatens your entire product.
The following scenario is unlikely - but if it ever does come to pass, we will all thank whatever gods we believe in for Debian to be there and for having been as strict as they are:
Imagine MS or possibly a small group of likewise evil, selfish companies whose only way of "winning" in the marketplace is to destroy their opponents. Imagine them banding together and using a combination of software patents, DRM and DMCA lawsuits and a couple copyright disputes to drag Linux into an endless legal battle. Imagine that different from the SCO they can somehow construct a case that at least appears solid enough to a judge that Redhat and SuSE and whoever you have get slapped with a preliminary injunction. Maybe it's just 2 packages that are a problem, but the judge orders a stop to the distribution until the entire thing can be resolved. You don't think MS would have much haste in getting it resolved, would you?
This or any other scenario like it wouldn't mean the end of Linux - you'd still be able to get your copy from some FTP in Sweden or China, but it would bring Linux progress into the enterprise market to a halt.
Unless there is a Debian that can point to documentation and lawyer papers and to the fact that they always acted with so much dilligence that it is very certain none of their stuff ever got tainted.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Yes it's very important to remember that.
1) People who disagree with you are zealots. Only zealots can possibly disagree with your obviously rational and well thought out opinions.
2) People who hold other values then you are doing it because they think it's a religion. You (and the people who agree with you 100%) are the only rational people on the planet.
evil is as evil does
Let's be honest - most developers don't give a white sh@$#%t about what clauses and doubtful legal situations can arise of use of software, so Debian-legal thoughts are usually have been taken with lot of anger and confusion. Devs just want to work with software and apps, but D-L is full of idealists and clever individuals in legal field, who see things quite differently (and it is NOTHING bad about that), and so conflict is in full force.
But in this case, I *think* it is totally overblown and feels like that Debian-legal just want to say big f12#$%k off to Java usage in Debian - non-legal arguments like "I don't use non-free", "there are ALMOST working free software implementation in main", etc says almost everything about discusssion - it is not about LEGAL situation, but about fears that if Java will be aviable in non-free and will be supported by DD, CLASSPATH and other Java projects will slowly loose momentum they achieved so far now (Again, it is just my thougts after reading almost half of thread).
I can understand both sides, but thinking "We will get free implementation, we don't need stinkin Sun official implementation" sounds like too much dreaming. Let's be honest - it is simply not possible. Oracle won't use CLASSPATH, they will insist to use JRE. Other software will too. Yes, there will be desktop apps which will run on Free Software versions just fine - like Eclipse, lot of different small aps, but for enterprise it will be big NO-NO.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Here's a hint:
A lawyer should be consulted on a license- NOT a developer. It's a legal matter, not a coding matter.
There's a legal gotcha on the Java license that SPI, being the legal interface for the Debian
project, that if things go wrong, they'd have to absorb and deal with. Without SPI, each of
the devs involved with the project would be held individually liable for potentially millions
of dollars each (And that is exactly what is possible with the new licensing from Sun on Java).
Do you now see WHY devs shouldn't be the final call on a license?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Maybe (probably) I'm missing some subtlety specific to Debian/SPI, but when I compare this situation to what I encounter in my professional life, it appears that SPI is in the wrong.
I work for a corporation. In my position, I frequently negotiate deals with software vendors, and this includes negotiating the contract terms. I am not a lawyer, however, so I work with our corporate attorneys in negotiating these contracts. They are responsible for understanding and explaining the legal ramifications of the contract terms, and I am responsible for understanding and explaining the business objectives of why we are trying to license the software.
Indemnification in particular is often a sticky subject in these negotiations. We usually get the indemnification clause that makes our lawyers happy, but in rare cases we do not.
In the end, however, it is notthe lawyer's job to decide whether or not we accept the terms of any contract. It is their job to advise me (and my managers) what risk we are taking with any given contract. It is then up to management to decide of that risk outweighs the business benefits we are trying to seek.
If somehow the Debian developers have gotten themselves in the position of needing permission from their attorney to sign a contract, then something has gotten seriously screwed up in their relationship. That would be like the CEO of McDonalds needing permission from some random fry cook to enter into a legal agreement. The attorney is to be an advisor, not a decision maker.
You espouse the political ideals as your own yet claim that your should not be dragged in to them. The very idea that a programmer could choose to distribute Free Software is in political danger (dmca/eucd, idea patents) and non-free software is being threatened at a political level (government purchasing rules primarily). If you
then you should consider how your vote might change the future of these "business models".In most areas of politics there are no Free Software implications. In fact never forget that things like the Debian Free Software Guidelines make absolutely explicit that the community can never try to cut out any group of people, even terrorists. Free Software is free for all whatever your political ideals, but do not think that this means Free Software is not political, it just limits it's politics to a few key areas which are required for it's continued existence.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Upon re-reading the post, I think I'm being sucked in by a troll. But since I've put so much effort (almost 10 minutes) into writing my reply, I'll post it anyway:
With all due respect, that's a load of crap.
Before white people and black people walked on the same land, one clan of white people killed and enslaved another group of white people in one land, and one tribe of black people killed and enslaved another tribe of black people in a different land. Race (or tribe, family, clan, gender) discrimination has existed for as long as there have been people and weapons that people could use on each other.
Before computers existed, there was copyright law, because people who made a living creating "intellectual property" had a right to control how the fruits of their mental labour were distributed, in order to ensure that they could benefit from their work.
Why should you have the right to enjoy? If I put a year's work into creating a beautiful garden, why should you automatically have the right to enjoy it? If I want to charge $10 per head admission, what's wrong with that? I deserve to be rewarded for my effort in creating the garden that you are enjoying.
Why should you have the right to inspect or study? If I spend years of my life trying to solve a problem, and during that year I manage to create a solution that nobody else has thought of, why should you get the benefit of that? Why can't I ask (or require) you to pay me to use that solution which I have worked so hard to create? And the only way I can be sure that people are fairly paying me for the use of my solution is for me to keep it secret.
Why should you have the right to share? That's got to be the silliest "right" I've heard of. If I spend a year of my time creating something, I'd like to be rewarded for that year of effort. Ideally, I'd like to be rewarded somewhere around $100,000 for that year of my life. I could try to sell one copy of my work for $100,000, but nobody wants it that much. So I want to sell 10,000 copies for $10. That way, I get rewarded, and 6000 people get to benefit from my work. Everyone's happy. But if you pay $10 for my work and then "share" it with the 9999 other people, I only get $10 for a year's work. That's good for your and your friends, but not good for me.
We live in a society where we exchange "money" for "things of value". As long as software is a "thing of value", people have a right to want to have "money" exchanged for it.
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
Before computers existed, there was copyright law, because people who made a living creating "intellectual property" had a right to control how the fruits of their mental labour were distributed, in order to ensure that they could benefit from their work.
Stop right here, because the rest of your post is based on this assumption, and it's wrong.
Modern copyright (I use the adjective "modern" to distinguish it from the original formulation of copyright, whose primary purpose was censorship by the British Crown) was not created because people have any implicit or explicit right to benefit financially from their intellectual creations. In fact, the reason we have copyright law today is because enlightened government leaders felt that the *public* has a right to benefit culturally and intellectually from the work of authors, painters, composers, etc.
Let me say that again: The purpose of copyright law is to benefit the public, not the copyright holder.
The reason society invests in granting and enforcing the inherently artificial monopoly that is copyright is to ensure that creations are distributed far and wide, so that they can spark other creations and enrich the public domain. Any benefits that accrue to the creator are incidental. All human intellectual creations are presumed to ultimately belong to the entire human race, which is why copyrights must expire and why the granted monopoly is full of holes (fair use, compulsory licensing, etc.).
That's the theory underlying US copyright law. The fact that the law on the books no longer reflects the theory very well is a problem we need to fix, not reinforce.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.