Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:03 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> 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.
> Yes. It is the reason why hardware "comes back after the 2 week 
> checking". Fortunately.
> > 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.
> >   
> "Fedora-devel" implies not home enthusiasts only. Normally a lot of 
> things we use  in some non-home place, and all such places are affected.
> 
> Consider the situation: you go to your employer and say "I want to help 
> to develop Fedora, let's change our, say RHEL2, server to Fedora 7, I 
> can guarantee that I'm skilled enough to support this". What the 
> employer shoild answer? "No, I don't want troubles wiith policy, because 
> your Fedora is not accompanied with any hard copy legal documents". :(

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.

It's a bit hard for Fedora to distribute hard copy material given that
Fedora doesn't distribute anything physical.

josh