Legality of Fedora in production environment

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at
Mon May 14 17:35:40 UTC 2007

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.

If you think the English-only GPL has some power internationally, you
have to accept the corrollary: other single-langage licenses have power
in the USA despite not being written in English. And the only document
that will have any legal value is the original licence in its original
langage (with translations from locally-legaly-accredited entities)

You want to "Fix" the problem you do what Mandriva did: have dedicated
packages for each license. And include there proposed translations of
the root document (which may or may not be in english). Ideally done by
accredited people for each locale.

Mandating English is just a stupid way to annoy local juridictions and
remind them they have laws requiring documents in their own language
(Yes every country has those including sometimes import laws forbidding
untranslated stuff. The EU is one example.)

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