On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 06:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 07:54 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 13:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote: > > > > > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and certify. > > > > > > > > > > I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid US > > > > > born citizen. > > > > While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license language? > > > > > > Not that I know of. > > > > > > > Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt. > > > > Licenses? > > > > > > I actually think this depends on the license itself. E.g. you cannot > > > use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the > > > FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid. > > > > > > > As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to "US > > > > courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd presume US laws would > > > > prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)? > > > > > > English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US. > > So English is mandated on "legal matters" in the USA, but it's legal to > > ship products from inside of the USA (such as Fedora) with licenses in > > "foreign languages/scripts"? > > > > > > Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses" in Fedora > > > > packages. > > > > > > I don't see a problem with those per-se. > > Well, this might not be much of a problem if things go to court, because > > you'll probably need an official translation to a "legally valid > > language" and because such court will not necessarily be located inside > > of the USA. > > > > But, how do you expect "arbitrary users" to be able to apply such > > licenses? You can't seriously expect any arbitrary user to speak any > > arbitrary language or read any arbitrary script. > > > > Consider the "Russian case" having popped up in recent days on > > fedora-devel. There a user claimed having to "show all licenses of SW > > being used in a production environment to the police". While he probably > > is able to translate "English", further languages would raise an > > additional level of complications. > > What exactly is your point? In a nutshell: Fedora ships packages with un-readable, non-verifiable licenses. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
