Legality of Fedora in production environment
rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon May 14 16:39:08 UTC 2007
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > It's quite simple: You have to agree on a common language (or a limited
> > set of thereof) otherwise you can't communicate with your customers
> > (here: users) and 3rd parties (here: authorities). For a US based
> > distro, I'd expect this language to be English.
> Correct. The license not being readable is a misleading exaggeration but
> the underlying point is valid. We need review guidelines that enforce
> this and bugs should be filed against packages which don't have license
> text in English.
> Ralf, do you know of other packages beside the example you cited?
Not off head. I was aware about the mecab case because I had blocked the
review due to lack of "applicable license", when Spot had OK'ed it after
a Japanese email had been added. Without having checked details, I'd
expect other "primarily Japanese audience/Asian language packages"
having the same issue.
More information about the fedora-devel-list