Legality of Fedora in production environment

eric magaoay ericm24x7 at
Fri May 11 20:08:07 UTC 2007

Alan Cox wrote:
>> 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
>  ...... "

I think you can add the following text to the license document, in order 
to allow hard copy to be treated as the original:

"A copy of this form has the same effect as the original."


> (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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list