Legality of Fedora in production environment

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at
Mon May 14 18:04:13 UTC 2007

Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> > 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.

And it's the same requirement for legal entities that are not based in
the US and are Fedora or RHEL users. Do you think they don't need to
check licensing too?

> What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software is 
> proprietary?

Then you do the same thing as everyone else - you pay a
legally-accredited translator to translate, you don't require a change
in the core license.

Or you do the sane no-offensive neutral thing - you setup the
infrastructure so everyone gets translations.

Why do you think the GPL does not include a "litigation must happen in
$foo court of $bar city of $baz country" clause? That "good" idea is
just a great way to have many people angry at you.

Legal code is not software code. It's not english-centric.

Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list