Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> >> 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.
> > 
> > English is no more blessed than another langage.
> 
> No but it is a requirement for a legal entity based on US which Fedora 
> via Red Hat is. Official English translations would be required for us 
> to understand and enforce the license.
> 
> What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software is 
> proprietary?

Then I guess the burden should be on Fedora in this case. Asking the
developer of a package (or a packager) to provide a legally verified
translation to English is a bit too much IMO.

Simo.