Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:42:27PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Exactly! It's not our fault, so why should we indemnify Sun against it?
>
> If it's not our fault, it's not under our control, and we *don't* need
> to indemnify. That's what the FAQ says; and whether or not it has legal
> value, it *does* explain the interpretation Sun gives to its license.
Changes to debian are made under debian's control (in theory).
The reason I raised the indemnity in particular is that the FAQ
does not contradict this concern, so all the "should we ignore
the FAQ" debate didn't affect it.
Quoth the FAQ:
| Simply put, Sun requires indemnification to limit its exposure for
| issues that are not Sun's fault. If your conduct or your OS causes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| a problem that results in a third-party claim, then Sun expects you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| to take responsibility for it. Note that you are not indemnifying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| Sun against claims that are a result of something in Sun's code. You
| also are not indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes that a
| downstream distributor has made to your OS.
You *are* indemnifying Sun against claims due to changes to your
OS whose inclusion you control. It's only downstream changes
that are excluded, not upstream. (AIUI, Gentoo can avoid this
neatly, with its users' install commands rebuilding the OS.)
Do you agree, or what have I missed?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
