Legality of Fedora in production environment
ericm24x7 at gmail.com
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fedora-devel-list