Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:42:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> As I understand, when our local distributors say "don't download, buy 
> our box with a paper", it is some kind of business for them -- i.e. to 
> intimidate users and to force them to buy their boxes instead of free 
> download. Currently I am even not sure that such a solution actually 
> work, but they recommend it.

If Russian bussiness people are like everyone else then I bet there are
even some enterprising ones pushing the police to "enforce" this ..

> I think the text should be "as robast, as possible". Besides the 
> "unlimited number of users and systems", it should say that "the 
> holographic label is not required", that the label on the case "designed 
> for M*crosoft" does not conflict with, etc.

We can sort that out I think

"The print of this certificate can be compared with the web page at
 ...... "

(and that web page can also have an FAQ for stupid policemen)

In theory you could store each "license document" owner name you hand out
and invite them to enter it into a web form for verification and have it
report the organisation the license is for etc to make it look good.

> BTW, one of the precedents is when sysadmin was arrested for absence of 
> holographic labels on a computer with Linux. (Next day was released, 
> surely). The police was instructed that each server must have holographic...

Some stupidity is only correctable by learning. Even in the UK we've had 
minor incidents with well meaning trading standards people trying to seize
"pirate" copies of Linux (because they were on CD-R so clearly pirate). 
Nowdays they've learned for the most part 8)

Alan