Legality of Fedora in production environment

eric magaoay ericm24x7 at gmail.com
Fri May 11 20:08:07 UTC 2007


Alan Cox wrote:
>> I think the text should be "as robast, as possible". Besides the 
>> "unlimited number of users and systems", it should say that "the 
>> holographic label is not required", that the label on the case "designed 
>> for M*crosoft" does not conflict with, etc.
>>     
>
> We can sort that out I think
>
> "The print of this certificate can be compared with the web page at
>  ...... "
>   

I think you can add the following text to the license document, in order 
to allow hard copy to be treated as the original:

"A copy of this form has the same effect as the original."

eric

> (and that web page can also have an FAQ for stupid policemen)
>
> In theory you could store each "license document" owner name you hand out
> and invite them to enter it into a web form for verification and have it
> report the organisation the license is for etc to make it look good.
>
>   
>> BTW, one of the precedents is when sysadmin was arrested for absence of 
>> holographic labels on a computer with Linux. (Next day was released, 
>> surely). The police was instructed that each server must have holographic...
>>     
>
> Some stupidity is only correctable by learning. Even in the UK we've had 
> minor incidents with well meaning trading standards people trying to seize
> "pirate" copies of Linux (because they were on CD-R so clearly pirate). 
> Nowdays they've learned for the most part 8)
>
> Alan
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070511/3081817f/attachment.htm>


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list