[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Legality of Fedora in production environment

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."


(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)



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]