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

Re: Legality of Fedora in production environment



Ralf Corsepius wrote, at 05/15/2007 01:39 AM +9:00:
> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> 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. 
>> Correct. The license not being readable is a misleading exaggeration but 
>> the underlying point is valid. We need review guidelines that enforce 
>> this and bugs should be filed against packages which don't have license 
>> text in English.
>>
>> Ralf, do you know of other packages beside the example you cited?
> Not off head. I was aware about the mecab case because I had blocked the
> review due to lack of "applicable license", when Spot had OK'ed it after
> a Japanese email had been added. Without having checked details, I'd
> expect other "primarily Japanese audience/Asian language packages"
> having the same issue.
> 
> Ralf

In this case we must make it sure that the translated license can
be accepted on Fedora. Actually I have one software which I want to
submit into Fedora, of which the license is written completely in
Japanese. I asked the developer (, who is Japanese) some questions
about the license, then translated into English, sent to Callaway,
and he asked FSF about my translated license. And we (Callaway and
me) are waiting the reply from FSF from more than one month.....

Note: the maintainer of mecab related packages is me.

Mamoru


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