[lsb-discuss] LSB conf call notes for 2008-07-30
R P Herrold
herrold at owlriver.com
Tue Aug 12 07:09:51 PDT 2008
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Theodore Tso wrote:
> also understand that some people have a religious objection to any
> software which is not released under the GPL; but I'm trying to
> determine the actual operational difficulties, not just vague
> religious objections.
I did not raise non-free FOSS/OSI license issues as I recall.
I do not address it, beyond the implicit 'non-Free'
nature of being exposed to NDA content and obligations to
> I also understand that Mr. Herrold has been raising concerns
> around Liability and indemnification, which I've addressed
> as best I have been able, given the very vague nature of his
Let me make it concrete:
shipping java (or not)
eliding trademarked matter to avoid infringement;
and protecting CentOS marks and brand
License compliance matters to CentOS; trademark liability
avoidance matters to CentOS; not exposing the community CentOS
developers to liability matters to CentOS.
This is not something I just made up last week. Making java
or Java available to users has been a thorn in my side for at
least a couple of years. The CentOS wiki, and a page I publish
deal with this issue, threading the needle [as one formerly
did with ssh.fi under the US Crypto export regs a decade ago]
without crossing the line to become a 'distributor' of Sun's
LSB is considering a path which will force accepting
unacceptable NDA, and 'indemnification' containing licenses
onto distributions; distributing a compliant and full featured
'java' (little 'j') in the PATH carries additional problems as
to distributing admixed 'conforming' Sun and
non-conformant non-Sun Java. I do not see how the commercial
distributors do it without a license waiver from Sun, as to
gcc-java, etc., but this is not within the scope of my area of
To me, for the LSB proceeding down that path, to require
NDA's, and indemnification to Sun (and implicitly at least
through Java 6 series, the prohibition of admixing 'conformant
and non-conformant 'java's) is unacceptable, and makes the LSB
less relevant to CentOS.
> Hopefully folks will find this a fair summary of the
> discussion to date.
Not at all, as it misses so much nuance, ignores the
practical exposure to real potential liability from vectors
NOT mentioned by you (e.g., the admixture distribution
license' problem, raised in my initial post), and sadly
strives at triangulation, contrary to that which I have posted
as clearly as I can. A full reading of the thread carries my
concerns, and I will stand on that instead.
-- Russ herrold
More information about the lsb-discuss