Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 18:09 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 10:56 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 16:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 06:43 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 05:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > What exactly is your point?
> > > > > In a nutshell:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fedora ships packages with un-readable, non-verifiable licenses.
> > > > 
> > > > Hyperbole
> > > 
> > > I guess, you mean FESCO and FPB ignorance? 
> > > 
> > > No? In international projects, normally, standardizing languages is one
> > > of the first step - Apparently forgotten in Fedora.
> > > 
> > > No? Then you'll probably be able to provide a translation of this within
> > > seconds:
> > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/python-mecab/devel/MeCab-license-Fedora?root=extras&rev=1.1&view=markup
> > 
> > Me personally?  No.  But just because you and I can't read it doesn't
> > make it un-readable and non-verifiable.
> What kind of argument is this? 

Wasn't an argument.

> None of us both can read it, nor will the police man wait behind our
> Russian friends, nor will the FBI agent raiding your home because
> somebody accused you to own "stolen SW".
> 
> May-be you now realize why we can't avoid to have an agreement on
> "acceptable license's languages"? 
> 
> It's quite simple: You have to agree on a common language (or a limited
> set of thereof) otherwise you can't communicate with your customers
> (here: users) and 3rd parties (here: authorities). For a US based
> distro, I'd expect this language to be English. 
> 
> This would at least enable users to translate it into his native
> language without major effort.

Aren't you on the Packaging Committee?  Why don't you bring this up as a
proposal.  It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

josh