How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 25, 2006 2:01 UTC (Thu) by joey (guest, #328)
Parent article: How Sun's Java got into Debian

> Sun's Java was fast-tracked into non-free, with the traditional
> extended debate on debian-legal having been shorted out entirely.

That's a mighty thin wire to hang an article on. It's traditional for new licences for potentially DFSG-free software targeted at Debian main to be hammered on in debian-legal first, but the process is much less stringent for packages going into non-free, and -legal is generally bypassed altogether in these cases unless there's some question about the redistributability of the software.

For example, when I uploaded the uqm-content package to non-free, I don't recall asking debian-legal for their opinion of its clearly non-free license. I did rely on the ftp-masters (James Troup, et al) to review the license and make sure they were ok with it being distributed by Debian mirrors in non-free. This seems much the same as how the java thing was handled, minus the publicity that surrounds java as a proprietary product backed by PR.

Come on...

Posted May 25, 2006 3:09 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] (1 responses)

Comparing uqm-content with java is pretty bogus. You know Corbet is right that Debian traditionally would debate the java license endlessly.

They still are going to in fact. See if I'm wrong.

Come on...

Posted Jun 1, 2006 23:39 UTC (Thu) by wolfrider (guest, #3105) [Link]

--My take on it is this:

o Debian "traditionally" debates things endlessly, and Things Don't Get Done in a Timely Manner as a result.

o The Duly Elected Head Honchos were approached by Sun, short-circuited the debate after examining the circumstances, and now Debian has the right to distribute Java from Sun.

--I'm not seeing a Downside here... ;-)

How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 25, 2006 17:30 UTC (Thu) by slef (guest, #14720) [Link] (7 responses)

Most licences are obvious enough not to refer to debian-legal, even non-free ones like uqm-content, but the DLJ one is clearly not obvious. You can tell just by looking at the size of the non-binding FAQ. It's a confusion of lawyerbombs and indemnifications, in my opinion.

I think this short-cutting of debian's usual good practices is a fair topic for an LWN article. Good, even. The more pressure on debian to sort this out, the better.

What does Debian gain from being in Sun's proprietary software PR? A bad name in free software circles, confusion among wider IT circles ("does this mean debian includes proprietary software, or that debian considers Java free software?"), a reputation for accepting NDAs and RMS criticising us deservedly. Deep joy.

Meanwhile, DPL Anthony Towns reacts by trying to cut down discussion (again), criticising free software supporters and writing that Java is important but free software Java implementations aren't effective...
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00278.html

How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 26, 2006 18:06 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] (5 responses)

What does Debian gain from being in Sun's proprietary software PR?

While non-free has indeed long been a source of confusion, Debian made a decision in the beginning that user convenience trumps the confusion and moral taint. Sun's Java is nothing new in this sense--except that its convenience value is particularly high. (Yes, I say this as someone who, reluctantly, has this program on some of my computers.)

reputation for accepting NDAs

NDA's are not uniformly evil. Temporary secrecy, even for PR purposes, may sometimes be acceptible. As Michael Banck pointed out, the security team does something similar all the time.

RMS criticising us deservedly

RMS has always criticised non-free, citing it as the reason he doesn't endorse Debian. Sun's Java in non-free doesn't give him any new arguments.

Meanwhile, DPL Anthony Towns reacts by trying to cut down discussion (again), criticising free software supporters and writing that Java is important but free software Java implementations aren't effective...

I think you're overreacting. Anthony Towns is encouraging people (from Debian and Sun) to discuss this on -legal, and I can't find him criticizing anyone (quite unusual for a Debian discussion!). And I really think it's unfair to imply that Anthony Towns is not a true "free software supporter". To your last point, he said that free implementations aren't effective as a replacement for Sun's Java, not that they aren't effective in general. It's hard to dispute this.

How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 26, 2006 18:28 UTC (Fri) by slef (guest, #14720) [Link] (4 responses)

I really think it's unfair to suggest that I implied stuff about Anthony Towns. Read his article. His "bad" scare quotes and comments about other Java implementations are there. Decide for yourself. Maybe I'm overreacting given other stuff he's done, as DPL and before, but that should be understandable.

If the free Java implementations aren't effective replacements, why does so much Java software seem to run on them now? It seems quite easy to dispute it, but I'm no Java fan.

I can't see how PR is an acceptable reason for secrecy. Security secrecy helps our users. PR secrecy helps Sun and it seems this time it screws our users by giving a false impression of safety of the DLJ. Not the same thing at all.

How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 26, 2006 19:53 UTC (Fri) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] (3 responses)

If you didn't mean to imply that aj is not a "free software supporter", then I retract that, though that is how I read it. However, I can't find anything objectionable in what he wrote. You made some pretty strong changes for which I don't see evidence. (If you had just said aj can be a jerk, I would have let it go.)

If the free Java implementations aren't effective replacements, why does so much Java software seem to run on them now?

In general, only Java software that has been "ported" to GCJ or whatever runs. Since much software (especially non-free) hasn't been ported, it usually doesn't run without hacking. This makes GCJ not an effective replacement. As a more concrete test, try viewing a random web page with an embedded applet using a free appletviewer.

PR secrecy helps Sun and it seems this time it screws our users by giving a false impression of safety of the DLJ.

The standard disclaimer for software in non-free is that the only thing you should conclude is that Debian can get away with distributing it. No implied freedom to use it in a jurisdiction or for a purpose, to redistribute verbatim, etc. Presence in non-free is not much of an endorsement.

Improving the free stack

Posted May 28, 2006 12:15 UTC (Sun) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (2 responses)

In general, only Java software that has been "ported" to GCJ or whatever runs. Since much software (especially non-free) hasn't been ported, it usually doesn't run without hacking.

At least for free software this is mostly untrue now, no "porting" should be needed, if there is, that is just a bug. Just see http://wiki.debian.org/Java/AlreadyMovedToMain

It is probably fair to say that Sun wanted their non-free packages included now because so many packages can these days be build and used on a completely free stack without any need for Sun proprietary code anymore.

As a more concrete test, try viewing a random web page with an embedded applet using a free appletviewer.

If you find such any applet that doesn't yet work please do add it to the GNU Classpath applets page http://developer.classpath.org/mediation/Applets and if it really doesn't work at the moment we will make sure it works soon.

Improving the free stack

Posted May 28, 2006 15:22 UTC (Sun) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link] (1 responses)

Awesome, it gets better all the time! I would still tend to back up aj's statement, because I have almost always had to do some fiddling to get my development infrastructure working with gcj, especially when it involves proprietary code. I'm willing to do that, but I could understand that for some people, it might not be worth it. This is not a judgement on the merit of gcj or classpath (or anything else) per se (I much prefer them to the proprietary alternatives!), just why they may not be "effective replacements" for everyone.

Improving the free stack

Posted May 29, 2006 16:57 UTC (Mon) by slef (guest, #14720) [Link]

Unsurprisingly, buggy proprietary code may not work on some implementations or platforms.

It seems that free software Java is an effective replacement on a free software operating system, which makes that statement by the *Debian* project leader somewhat disappointing.

How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 28, 2006 22:32 UTC (Sun) by pimlott (guest, #1535) [Link]

What does Debian gain from being in Sun's proprietary software PR?

I see that I read this too quickly the first time around. I thought you were asking how Debian benefits from Sun's proprietary software being in non-free, not how Debian benefits from being included in the publicity for their proprietary software. I agree that if Debian developers, including the project leader, avoided public discussion just to appear in print next to Sun, that would be rather unseemly. But the PR may have been just a side effect of the license negotiation: Sun didn't want to go public without a license, but Sun and Debian both had an interest in the license being acceptible for non-free, so they agreed to hammer it out in closed discussions. After that, the coordinated launch and joint press release come for free.

You might still object that publicity over proprietary software is not in line with Debian's principles. I think this is a deep and difficult question. One way to look at this is as a public affirmation that Debian indeed supports users who "require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines". On the other hand, you could argue that supporting is one thing, hyping is another.

How Sun's Java got into Debian

Posted May 30, 2006 10:09 UTC (Tue) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

> For example, when I uploaded the uqm-content package to non-free, I don't recall asking debian-legal for their opinion of its clearly non-free license.

You do not recall, but you actually did the right thing: you properly RTP/ITPed it mentionning the license issue, see the RFP #171314 <http://bugs.debian.org/171314>.

If no one decided to discuss the license on debian-legal, it was
certainly not due to your failure of advertising the license.