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."

Comments

non-free is not part of debian

[joostje]

The java packages are (if at all) only included in non-free, and that isn't part of the official debian. So yes, it may be a big fight, AFAIK the cause of the fight (the java packages in non-free) is only about an extra service Debian provides to it's users, not about debian itself.

Re:non-free is not part of debian

[Pecisk]

Yes, you are right on target, but it is more than that. I see it is a fight against "evil Sun binaries". Not to troll or blame either side, I can say I understand them both, It is very clearly to see that Debian-legal has big no-no opinion to bind Debian, even remotely or vague, with Sun legal webs. Good or bad, it is hard to say, but those people just hate Sun - maybe it is justified, maybe not, I don't know. I don't use Java very much and I won't be sad it to go. BUT lot of enterprise devs/admins are would be very happy to have "apt-getable" JRE in Debian/Ubuntu. So...I just don't know. Long years everyone bashed Sun that it didn't give us distribution freedom. And now when they give some rest and are willing to help in distribution of JRE - finally, I say - then these people comes up and say "GPL or nothing".

People are afraid of binary and commercial software. Afraid of lock-in. I understand them, it is very hard to say what future will bring. But this very childish flameware without even mentioning TRUE reasons of opposition has to stop.

And people, remember - yes, maybe those "freebies" are zealots, but they are so by cause. Sun can't be wholy trusted, as they have done very bad things in past - supported SCO recently and tried to cash in on IBM vs. SCO lawsuit, and binary only/commercial software tends to break or be simply untrustable (I speak from my 13 years admin expierence). And let's not talk about legal issues, which is totally black picture most of common crowd (they don't care about paying back credit sometimes, too). So they have some rights to be what they are and have opinions what they have. What I oppose in their action, that they simply don't want compromises. It is only thing I can say I don't like with them.

Politics

[ClamIAm]

Hmm ok I'm kind of surprised that the anti-Debian folks haven't jumped on this already. So....anyway, I guess that I'll inject my opinion anyway

Personally, I'm really glad we do have Debian. They don't shy away from politics, and I think that's a good thing. Why? Well, the Free Software/Open Source ideals are inherently political things. To shut up and just allow stuff to happen is almost completely opposite to the movements themselves.

Sure, you can claim that discussions like this hamper development. Maybe they do (although I doubt it). You can claim Debian is behind the times compared to Ubuntu or Gentoo or even Slackware depending on what you value. But these things do need to be discussed.

It might seem like a cop-out, but the following quote really stands out in my mind: "Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics; you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.". RMS said that. I think it sums up the situation rather well.

Re:Politics

[SqyD]

"you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone." ...sounds a lot like Ralph Nader two US presedential elections ago:
"If you're not turned on by politics, politics will turn on you..."

A bit confused

[Umbral Blot]

Let me get this straight, the programmers behind Debian are threatening to give their legal team the boot? So it could be good, because sometimes lawyers suck, or it could be bad, because it implies Debian is about to make a huge legal mistake. Does anyone have a link to what the actual dispute is about, because the summary is lacking in details? (although it does have more than its fair share of alphabet soup: DPL, SPI, JDL)

not really

[sentientbrendan]

>Why? Well, the Free Software/Open Source ideals are inherently political things.

Nothing about using linux or writing OSS, requires me to jump on your political bandwagon.

I'm sure that open source is an ideal to you, but to most people it is not. It is software, and it is a business model to me and many others. It isn't inherently political to use it, and it's annoying when people try to drag the rest of us into their political battles.

Personally, as much as I use and love some open source software, I think that it is a good thing that developers have the freedom to release their software under whatever licensing they want, including a closed source one. I don't even think it would be a good thing if all software was open source. I think that closed source development is an important business model for many people.

Control Freak

[Anonymous Coward]

Towns is turning this into a control issue when the Goerzen is just saying "Hey, it's not that tough to just run it buy our lawyers. Forewarned is forearmed."

I was part of a project that ended up blowing up. I was in SPI's position, just trying to keep everyone on the same page and help the person in control acheive goals. The person in control turned it into a control issue. It never was and I made every effort to make that clear. There was never any history to even suggest control issues. Finally, after much abuse, I left and so did several other people important to the project who knew what was going on. It turned out there were ideological problems, with the controller essentially wanting things one way while telling people things were to be another way in order to keep those people around.

Towns reminds me of the control freak of our own project. That was how it began - an irrational unwillingness to even hear what was being said and attributing everything as an attempt to control the project. Towns needs to step back and take a break. He needs some perspective. If there is anything he's not telling folks, he needs to come out with it. Because until that happens, anything he does is probably going to be to the detriment of Debian.

Great to see that the developers break free

[john_sd1]

Great to see that the Debian developers start to break free from the strangulation of debian-legal and their overly religious OSS zealotry. It is usually debian-legal who pretends to act "in the name of the user" whereas the opposite is true and explains in large parts the success of Ubuntu.

There are two types of OSS developers out there:

• the Linus type "have fun and cooperate" and
• the RMS type "OSS is religion"

The group of the relgious people however manages to silence the more pragmatic ones in the name of "higher ideals". But what is worse is that the concept of meritocracy fails too. Most of the people on debian-legal are no lawyers at all but amidst the blind the one eyed is king - even if color blind and short sighted.

Example from debian-legal of a discussion about postgres:

> What sort of legal advice has Debian consulted that came to a > different opinion? There is a sizable pool of people that regularly examine licenses for Debian, looking for problems. Debian does not regularly consult practicing attorneys on these issues. debian-legal

How could the situation be better exposed: "people (without any merits) looking for problems". That's what they are. All developers would reject a mailing list "debian-techadvice" where clueless people could make binding technical decisions, i.e. whether to use gcc 4.0 or 4.1.

One has to go through a notorious process to become a developer but it just needs an email client and a subscription to debian-legal in order to strangle 1500 developers. Time to change Debian back from a supermarket thing to one of the leaders of technology. Congrats Anthony!

Re:Great to see that the developers break free

[NMerriam]

How could the situation be better exposed: "people (without any merits) looking for problems". That's what they are. All developers would reject a mailing list "debian-techadvice" where clueless people could make binding technical decisions,

Yeah, inexperienced people bringing attention to potential problems! What a hoot.

Next thing you know Debian will let people report bugs in software without first completing a CS degree and providing a source diff that patches the problem! Imagine the nightmare such plebians would cause in software development...

Re:A lot of nerve

[Raphael]

The current Java license is obviously unacceptable;

Is it? The main problem seems to be the indemnification clause. But Java is not the only package in the standard archive or in non-free that has such a clause. And it appears that nobody complained about these other packages.

Here is a quote from another message from the Anthony Towns (DPL) in that thread:

From the xorg-x11 copyright file:

] 11. Indemnity. Recipient shall be solely responsible for damages arising,
] directly or indirectly, out of its utilization of rights under this License.
] Recipient will defend, indemnify and hold harmless Silicon Graphics, Inc.
] from and against any loss, liability, damages, costs or expenses (including
] the payment of reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of Recipient's use,
] modification, reproduction and distribution of the Subject Software or out of
] any representation or warranty made by Recipient.

From the openoffice.org copyright file:

] Therefore, if
] a Contributor includes the Program in a commercial product offering, such
] Contributor ("Commercial Contributor") hereby agrees to defend and indemnify
] every other Contributor ("Indemnified Contributor") against any losses, damages
] and costs (collectively "Losses") arising from claims, lawsuits and other legal
] actions brought by a third party against the Indemnified Contributor to the
] extent caused by the acts or omissions of such Commercial Contributor in
] connection with its distribution of the Program in a commercial product
] offering.

Re:A lot of nerve

[NMerriam]

As a "legal representative" -- you serve your client. While SPI may have preferred to be in the loop sooner, they can't "expect" or "demand" it. They are supposed to assist Debian. If Debian (as a body) chooses not to seek assistance / advice -- so be it!

That's somewhat akin to saying that just because an accountant works for you, he should support your embezzlement. On the contrary, an accountant has legal responsibilities that go beyond doing whatever you say, and so does legal counsel. An attorney who didn't advise their client not to take legal advice from the opposing party would be not just a bad lawyer, but possibly personally liable, and could potentially lose their license to practice law.

As you say, if Debian chooses not to be represented by the SPI, that's their choice, but until SPI is told, they have responsibilities.

Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

This was bound to happen. Here you have a new guy at the steering wheel who has just become the head honcho of the GNU/Debian Linux project. So what is more important here? The wellfare of Debian as a whole or your building reputation as "the head honcho of...". This is just your regular bobo (IMO ofcourse) trying to make a name for himself while basicly ignoring the issues which are very relevant to Debian.

Here I see someone who is only doing the numbers without even caring what is being said and where things are going. "> SPI projects shouldn't be taking advice from Sun's attorneys.", puhlease... Ever heard of keeping an open mind? Or, if you wish to take it on the "Sun is our lesser Microsoft like evil empire" kind of approach the ancient old saying: "Know thy enemy". When the SCO issue was going on people also didn't go "We're not taking advice from SCO" because that is just the narrow minded kind of approach which will only get you into trouble. No, instead you hear them out, make them speak up their mind and then, and only then, will you start taking action based on the things they said.

But like I said; this crap was bound to happen. Debian has always been a distribution which keeps strict standards, so how does one make a better name for himself? Simple; take the whole issue one level upwards so people can say "Whoah, he's really protecting Debian's standards.". The next generation of people aren't always as great as the first, especially when their main goal isn't to help and push a certain project forward but has shifted to become part of that project due to its reputation and fame.

Well, the way I see it is simple: its not the rules, the policies, the lawyers, the software, etc. which is what makes Debian great. Its the people who show commitment every single day to keep Debian as great as it is. But sadly people like yourself don't wish to see this and only hammer on rules and policies, even if this means insulting and by-passing people who have been in their seat far longer than you have. It would really show of good leadership to make use of these people's expertise.

And during these times I have to say that Ubuntu begins to look very appealing.

Re:A lot of nerve

[joostje]

Excuse me? I'm not Debian expert but as far as I know the normal process for new packages is to issue an ITP (intent-to-package) stating among other things the license of the package and send a copy to debian-devel -- this is all documented in the developers-reference. New licenses are typically sent to debian-legal for review.

You are absolutely right, for packages in main. I'm not sure about packages outside main (those in non-free). However, as you notice, none of the above includes asking SPI for permission, so even if licenses of non-free packages need to be sent to debian-legal etc, that still wouldn't have been a need to consult SPI.

It may well be that errors have been made, I just don't see how SPI can be so offended about being sidelined, when there wasn't a need to consult SPI anyway.

Re:A lot of nerve

[DragonWriter]

Its fairly common for lawyers -- even ones getting paid -- to split with clients because their clients persist in not taking the lawyers' advice and doing things they were advised not to.

This isn't about reporting criminal wrongdoing at all, so that's not an issue. Its about whether a particular client and their legal representative can effectively work together, and, if the client is doing deals consulting the other sides lawyers and not their own, and can't be convinced that's not the right way to do business, well, its pretty easy to see there is a fundamental problem there.

Goerzen shares the blame

[alienmole]

Regardless of whether he's right, Goerzen made it a control issue when he wrote:

> I am becoming increasingly concerned at the unilateral method in which
> you and/or the archive maintainers have taken this decision.
>
> The ability to enter into a legal contract to indemnify a third party
> should be, and arguably IS, reserved solely for the SPI Board of
> Directors.

It seems that part of the problem, at least, is that Towns may not fully understand the nature of the Debian/SPI relationship. Goerzen could have been much more diplomatic about it, but the way he put it, he highlights the control issue in an extreme way, i.e. essentially saying "you have no authority to do what you're doing". Regardless of whether that's true, Goerzen could be more diplomatic about it. In fact, he has an obligation to be more diplomatic about it, as President and Chairman of SPI, in the interests of serving the organizations which SPI exists to serve.