Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 01:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
Now you can, of course , ask them to trust licenses written for US
Common Law and let them hope they apply cleanly in their legal system.
But then, they have all the rights to decline the request.
Right. We then decline to include their software in Fedora. Do you see
another way to deal with this without involving Red Hat legal?
We shouldn't abuse Red Hat legal, but discarding the option a priori
seem a bit hard to me.
What you are implying is that Fedora is an "English" only distribution.
Well, while I have no problems with English, this seem a bit
discriminatory and I don't like it.
Nope. I have been a translator before myself. That's far from what I am
saying. What I am saying that is the Red Hat is a US based legal entity
for Fedora and English is mandated as the language for legal
communication in that region.
Even having a single software in a license that we can't understand
legally is not good for us to enforce anything or avoid risks. It is not
a question of pragmatism, discrimination of openness.
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
