On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 18:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 10:56 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 16:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 06:43 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 05:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > > What exactly is your point? > > > > > In a nutshell: > > > > > > > > > > Fedora ships packages with un-readable, non-verifiable licenses. > > > > > > > > Hyperbole > > > > > > I guess, you mean FESCO and FPB ignorance? > > > > > > No? In international projects, normally, standardizing languages is one > > > of the first step - Apparently forgotten in Fedora. > > > > > > No? Then you'll probably be able to provide a translation of this within > > > seconds: > > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/python-mecab/devel/MeCab-license-Fedora?root=extras&rev=1.1&view=markup > > > > Me personally? No. But just because you and I can't read it doesn't > > make it un-readable and non-verifiable. > What kind of argument is this? Wasn't an argument. > None of us both can read it, nor will the police man wait behind our > Russian friends, nor will the FBI agent raiding your home because > somebody accused you to own "stolen SW". > > May-be you now realize why we can't avoid to have an agreement on > "acceptable license's languages"? > > 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. > > This would at least enable users to translate it into his native > language without major effort. Aren't you on the Packaging Committee? Why don't you bring this up as a proposal. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
