Legality of Fedora in production environment
rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon May 14 03:55:07 UTC 2007
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 06:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 07:54 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 13:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > 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.
> > So English is mandated on "legal matters" in the USA, but it's legal to
> > ship products from inside of the USA (such as Fedora) with licenses in
> > "foreign languages/scripts"?
> > > > Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses" in Fedora
> > > > packages.
> > >
> > > I don't see a problem with those per-se.
> > Well, this might not be much of a problem if things go to court, because
> > you'll probably need an official translation to a "legally valid
> > language" and because such court will not necessarily be located inside
> > of the USA.
> > But, how do you expect "arbitrary users" to be able to apply such
> > licenses? You can't seriously expect any arbitrary user to speak any
> > arbitrary language or read any arbitrary script.
> > Consider the "Russian case" having popped up in recent days on
> > fedora-devel. There a user claimed having to "show all licenses of SW
> > being used in a production environment to the police". While he probably
> > is able to translate "English", further languages would raise an
> > additional level of complications.
> What exactly is your point?
In a nutshell:
Fedora ships packages with un-readable, non-verifiable licenses.
More information about the fedora-devel-list