Re: Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Matej Cepl <mcepl redhat com>]

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