Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Simo Sorce]

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 15:29 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:28:45PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > Randy Wyatt wrote:
> > >Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
> > Yep, but GPL is not approrved officially in our (and many other) 
> > countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of 
> > GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is 
> > enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
> 
> since Russia is a member of the Berne Convention, if I recall well, some 
> lawyer consider that there shouldn't be a need for a translation and
> even that no translation is better. I know that it depends on the lawyer
> since, in France there is a dispute against those who think that since
> the GPL has some clauses that don't translate easily to french law it is
> not applicable and those who think that under the Bern Convention the
> GPL should be reinterpretated in the context of the French laws.
> 
> In any case I am not convinced that this discussion belongs to
> fedora-devel-list, although I am not sure that there exists a list about 
> those kind of issues.

This is definitively a more general Free Software problem.

The law there is obviously broken but there is nothing you can except
lobbying for amendments in appropriate forums.

Meanwhile I guess the easiest thing you can do is to print the license
agreement shown to you by the fedora installer, in English, and show it
to the authorities.

Simo.