Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Rahul Sundaram wrote, at 05/15/2007 02:46 AM +9:00:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>>> 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.
>>
>> English is no more blessed than another langage.
> 
> No but it is a requirement for a legal entity based on US which Fedora 
> via Red Hat is. Official English translations would be required for us 
> to understand and enforce the license.

The trouble is that while many people cannot judge if the license can
be accepted if no translation into English is attached, many people
also cannot judge if the *translation itself* is correct......

Actually I have one package in Fedora where translation itself
became a problem. More precisely, the license of the software
is originally written in Japanese, and the software also has
English-translated version. However the content differs in some
points and the English-translated version is rejected by debian...
I don't write the details any further, but I just note that
the license was finally accepted by Callaway.

> What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software is 
> proprietary?
So even I translate the license into English, perhaps almost no
one can check my translation...

Mamoru