Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit : > > 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. And it's the same requirement for legal entities that are not based in the US and are Fedora or RHEL users. Do you think they don't need to check licensing too? > What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software is > proprietary? Then you do the same thing as everyone else - you pay a legally-accredited translator to translate, you don't require a change in the core license. Or you do the sane no-offensive neutral thing - you setup the infrastructure so everyone gets translations. Why do you think the GPL does not include a "litigation must happen in $foo court of $bar city of $baz country" clause? That "good" idea is just a great way to have many people angry at you. Legal code is not software code. It's not english-centric. -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
