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.
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.
Bet they're regretting not running stable on Andy Towns now.
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
These are the problems:3 70245
3 70295
3 70296
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
The US places export restrictions on certain types of software (mostly encryption related stuff), which Sun has reflected in it's license. Since Debian can't/won't control which country has access to US-based mirrors then that means that they can't fuffill the obligation to screen out illegal downloads from certain countries and such. According to this license the work around Debian has used in the past is to have non-US for exported restricted software. Which is basicly you can only have the software on non-US based mirrors.
Debian has gotten rid of non-US for Sarge due to the relaxation of export controls by the U.S. government. But it would still violate Sun's licensing.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
This is Sun's obnoxiousness showing with this one:
""" (c) you do not combine, configure or distribute the Software to
run in conjunction with any additional software that implements
the same or similar functionality or APIs as the Software;"""
The bug author mentions the Java version of Python, but basicly it would make things like a distro shipping GCJ and Sun's java would be a licensing violation.
Obviously (in My eyes) Sun chooses this for two reasons:
A. To keep it's java runtime pure and functional. Avoids bug-inducing conflicts.
B. Help kill off Free software java implimentation.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=
In Sun's License states that you can't modify any sort of copyright notices and whatnot. But by splitting the package up like Debian does they can't avoid modifying this stuff. Thusly Debian is violating Sun's distribution license.
Debian can ship non-free stuff in non-free obviously according to their bylaws.. but Debian doesn't have the authority to break OTHER people's licenses.
Sun says that this is OK and it's legal mumbo jumbo they can ignore. Debian's lawyer are basicly saying we can't violate Sun's licenses... ESPECIALLY without a discussion and you should pull the package from non-free until Sun fixes it's licensing so that Debian can use it legally.
This has happenned before with other software. Sun's license is shit and should be avoided by any sort of sane Linux distribution.
They should hire you to write the summaries instead.
Philosophy.
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.
That's why my wife left me!
She probably left you for a well-hung guy named Ubuntu, am I right?
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
Debian is a *project* not an entity or person. Projects cannot be held legally accountable or own things.
SPI is not a legal firm full of lawyers. SPI is a corporation that provides the legal entity that can own property & purchase services for the Debian developers. SPI is the entity that OWNS the name "Debian", the servers the files are hosted on, and that contracts the attorneys that protect Debian developers. (Without knowing the twisty history, I wouldn't be surprised if Debian wasn't the project that caused SPI to be created.)
In human terms, SPI is Debian's legal guardian. SPI is legally responsible for Debian's debts, obligations, and will be the one against the wall if Debian does something bad. However Debian admins can agree to legal terms and contracts which put SPI on the spot.
I quote one of the posts: SPI projects shouldn't be taking advice from Sun's attorneys. We should be taking advice from SPI's attorneys.
In other words: "don't take legal advice from the attorneys who may be suing you tomorrow, especially when those attorneys may be suing you, me, and two dozen other people in the process."
Darn good advice.
I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.