The whole java/non-free affair

summary of the problem

I've re-read most of the calm and useful posts (yes some exist if you look hard :D) in the java-tro^H^Hhread.

Yes, the pro-java-in-non-free are right — if we omit to mention all the difficulties it will imply if such a removal has to happen for a stable update^[1] — removing java from our mirrors do terminate the license solve most of the issues. Though, two major concerns remains:

1. clause 2.f (you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages ... and so forth) is IMHO unacceptable, even for non-free, because debian isn't in a position where it can risk to see that clause exercised by Sun ;
2. section 4 (and others of the same sort) makes the existence of java in non-free depending of Sun's mood: exercising clause 4 is trivial — they just have to imagine a new kernel feature our kernel should support that we can't provide to terminate the license retro-actively. Many instances of that problem exists in the license.

The first problem in itself seems obvious, and none of the arguments of the pro-java-in-non-free have put me at rest.

The second problem is a real concern because it means that our java support can be discontinued without possible clean upgrade path back to java-package. If Sun could not retire our right to redistribute one given version of java, then we could repackage the last version we can distribute with some debconf dialog to warn the user his java package won't be upgraded again, and that he must fall back to make-jpkg. But here, if Sun decides it, Sun can make the package simply disappear. And given the number of users that will concern, this is not a problem to be taken lightly.

I honnestly believe that putting java into non-free, whereas we already have java-package that allow a quite satisfying integration of Sun's JDK/JRE into a debian instance, implicitely means that we are confident that java will stay in here forever (or for a significant enough time). And I see nothing that can guarantee such a fact, and I see too many things that can prevent this with a probability significantely greater than 0.

Yes there I know there is a FAQ about those issues, where Sun promise they won't use their power to hurt people. But if they don't itend to, why did they put those clauses in the license ? With all the good will I can provide, that does not makes sense to me. If you put landmines in your garden, well, that's for a purpose, not for the garnishment.

debian issues

And then, I've a couple of questions there, for which I've seen no real answer:

• why did that announce has been hurried like that ? yes Sun hadn't published their license, but I still don't understand how it can explain such a hurry.
• will debian switch to python 2.5 directly, so that we can skip one transition ? (that could explain why some maintainer have more time to dedicate to non urgent non-free packages, whereas some other would need its plain attention for etch)
• a more polite version of the previous question is: why do some people have been working soooo fast on this, when those people have other very real problems to deal with for etch ? that looks like a childish schedule, that puts shiny-public-things first^[2] instead of the problems that block a lot of DDs in their allday's work (some complains about NEW beeing stuck — and it is, and was even before Debconf —, other complain about the python2.4 transition that lags since ages, and other examples exists …)
• why did only 3 persons worked on that, for a package that :
  • is well known ;
  • will obviously make noise, given to its history wrt the free software world ;
  • has a license that seem to have some obvious problems ;
  • …

and I'll skip the questions I don't want to ask, or more precisely I don't want/fear to read the answer to:

• why does this come 1 week after that ubuntu made it clear they had some things going on with Sun ?

Disclaimer

Don't get me wrong. I've been really happy when I've seen that java entered non-free (even if I don't like the language — but that's another story and is off topic here), because that meant that progress had been done in the good direction, and that's a thing I just have to praise.

But then I've heard people complain about the damn license, and went read it. And then, I've been really disappointed, and I felt betrayed by those three people:
yes, I'm a DD, but I'm also a Debian User, and I trust my fellow developpers to bring to debian packages that don't have license issues, and will be supported enough^[3]. As a user, I feel betrayed because nothing that I expect from a package that is in debian (even in non-free) can be guaranteed for the java package.