On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 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. > > No but it is a requirement for a legal entity based on US which Fedora > via Red Hat is. Official English translations would be required for us > to understand and enforce the license. > > What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software is > proprietary? Then I guess the burden should be on Fedora in this case. Asking the developer of a package (or a packager) to provide a legally verified translation to English is a bit too much IMO. Simo. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
