Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
> > > > packages.  You could systematically go through and print off each of
> > > > these.
> 
> > > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and certify.
> > 
> > I always forget about translating.  I blame it on me being a stupid US
> > born citizen.
> While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license language?

Not that I know of.

> Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
> Licenses?

I actually think this depends on the license itself.  E.g. you cannot
use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the
FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid.

> As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to "US
> courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd presume US laws would
> prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)?

English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US.

> Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses" in Fedora
> packages.

I don't see a problem with those per-se.

josh