Legality of Fedora in production environment

Benjamin Kosnik bkoz at
Fri May 11 15:59:04 UTC 2007

> Yes, I have some examples (in Russian). But there is no guarantee that 
> it contains "currently expected" text...

It looks like Alan has the beginnings of something that we can use for 
the text.

In the meantime, you should try to scan/take photos of these 
certificates, put them up on the web, and send a link to the images to 
this thread.

In addition, if translations to English could be provided then that 
would be very helpful.

> 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.

How unfortunate.

Sadly, that's not something the Fedora project or any of the individuals 
associated with it can do anything about.

However, what we can do is come up with an elaborate certificate, 
suitable for printing and stickering, capable of being beribboned, etc. 
Note this is not an actual legal document.

> Expected by whom?... By the checking policeman?..


> 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.
> 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...

This seems like something that your local linux LUG, Unix group, or EFF 
should try to straighten out.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list