On 2007-05-14, 18:13 GMT, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I didn't require a change to the core license. Who told you > I was? What I wanted was a official translation. That's the > minimum we need to ensure that we don't include software under > licenses don't understand or not enforceable. If you mean by official translation, a piece of paper which would have the same legal relevance as the English original, then it is really bad idea. There is a reason why commercial contracts are almost never bilingual, but only the original version is given legal status, and all translations are for information purposes only (except for agreeements among countries, where negotiators rely on the hope that their terms in office will expire sooner, then the shooting begins ;-)). Moreover, of course, what is a binding contract in one country, doesn't have to be the one in other (e.g., until the last summer, all shrinkp-wrap and internet-wrap licenses were void and unenforceable under the Czech law, and I believe it is true in most of the countries in the Europe). And GPL et all for information purposes only is available in many places and in many languages. Best, Matej -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
