8:01 a.m.
The using of software in business and production environment can be a
subject for legislative regulation. It can lead to some legal troubles
of using of distributions like Fedora.
Recently the appropriate laws in my country (Russia) have been
significantly toughened. Now the police can check for illegal software
usage by their own initiative (without request from the owner). The tax
inspection demands that software should be registered at accounts
departments.
During such a checking, the user is obliged now to show all hardcopy
license documents (with original signatures and stamps). But there are
no any such things for distros like Fedora, which have been just
downloaded from Internet, hence the user shows nothing. In this
situation the police *must* temporarily confiscate system blocks (up to
2 weeks) for further checking...
Certainly, after the checking period all hardware comes back, but such
troubles are not allowed for normal business.
Are there any similar troubles in other countries?
How it can be avoided?
Our local linux distributors recommend to not download from Internet,
but buy their box, which includes CDs accompanied with some license
facsimile paper (just to show polices at least "something").
Dmitry Butskoy,
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Red Hat Certified Engineer 809003662809495
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DmitryButskoy
8:17 a.m.
Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
On 5/11/07, Dmitry Butskoy <buc(a)odusz.so-cdu.ru> wrote:
The using of software in business and production environment can be a
subject for legislative regulation. It can lead to some legal troubles
of using of distributions like Fedora.
Recently the appropriate laws in my country (Russia) have been
significantly toughened. Now the police can check for illegal software
usage by their own initiative (without request from the owner). The tax
inspection demands that software should be registered at accounts
departments.
During such a checking, the user is obliged now to show all hardcopy
license documents (with original signatures and stamps). But there are
no any such things for distros like Fedora, which have been just
downloaded from Internet, hence the user shows nothing. In this
situation the police *must* temporarily confiscate system blocks (up to
2 weeks) for further checking...
Certainly, after the checking period all hardware comes back, but such
troubles are not allowed for normal business.
Are there any similar troubles in other countries?
How it can be avoided?
Our local linux distributors recommend to not download from Internet,
but buy their box, which includes CDs accompanied with some license
facsimile paper (just to show polices at least "something").
Dmitry Butskoy,
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Red Hat Certified Engineer 809003662809495
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DmitryButskoy
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
8:28 a.m.
Randy Wyatt wrote:
Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
Yep, but GPL
is not approrved officially in our (and many other)
countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of
GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is
enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
On 5/11/07, *Dmitry Butskoy* <buc(a)odusz.so-cdu.ru
<mailto:buc@odusz.so-cdu.ru>> wrote:
The using of software in business and production environment can be a
subject for legislative regulation. It can lead to some legal
troubles
of using of distributions like Fedora.
[snip]
~buc
8:29 a.m.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:28:45PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Randy Wyatt wrote:
>Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
Yep, but GPL is not approrved officially in our (and many other)
countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of
GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is
enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
since Russia is a member of the Berne Convention, if I recall well, some
lawyer consider that there shouldn't be a need for a translation and
even that no translation is better. I know that it depends on the lawyer
since, in France there is a dispute against those who think that since
the GPL has some clauses that don't translate easily to french law it is
not applicable and those who think that under the Bern Convention the
GPL should be reinterpretated in the context of the French laws.
In any case I am not convinced that this discussion belongs to
fedora-devel-list, although I am not sure that there exists a list about
those kind of issues.
--
Pat
8:52 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 15:29 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:28:45PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Randy Wyatt wrote:
> >Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
> Yep, but GPL is not approrved officially in our (and many other)
> countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of
> GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is
> enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
since Russia is a member of the Berne Convention, if I recall well, some
lawyer consider that there shouldn't be a need for a translation and
even that no translation is better. I know that it depends on the lawyer
since, in France there is a dispute against those who think that since
the GPL has some clauses that don't translate easily to french law it is
not applicable and those who think that under the Bern Convention the
GPL should be reinterpretated in the context of the French laws.
In any case I am not convinced that this discussion belongs to
fedora-devel-list, although I am not sure that there exists a list about
those kind of issues.
This is definitively a more general Free Software problem.
The law there is obviously broken but there is nothing you can except
lobbying for amendments in appropriate forums.
Meanwhile I guess the easiest thing you can do is to print the license
agreement shown to you by the fedora installer, in English, and show it
to the authorities.
Simo.
9:03 a.m.
Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:28:45PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Randy Wyatt wrote:
>
>> Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
>>
> Yep, but GPL is not approrved officially in our (and many other)
> countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of
> GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is
> enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
>
since Russia is a member of the Berne Convention, if I recall well, some
lawyer consider that there shouldn't be a need for a translation and
even that no translation is better.
Yes. It is the reason why hardware "comes
back after the 2 week
checking". Fortunately.
In any case I am not convinced that this discussion belongs to
fedora-devel-list, although I am not sure that there exists a list about
those kind of issues.
"Fedora-devel" implies not home enthusiasts only. Normally a lot of
things we use in some non-home place, and all such places are affected.
Consider the situation: you go to your employer and say "I want to help
to develop Fedora, let's change our, say RHEL2, server to Fedora 7, I
can guarantee that I'm skilled enough to support this". What the
employer shoild answer? "No, I don't want troubles wiith policy, because
your Fedora is not accompanied with any hard copy legal documents". :(
~buc
9:29 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:03 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:28:45PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
>
>> Randy Wyatt wrote:
>>
>>> Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
>>>
>> Yep, but GPL is not approrved officially in our (and many other)
>> countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of
>> GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is
>> enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
>>
>
> since Russia is a member of the Berne Convention, if I recall well, some
> lawyer consider that there shouldn't be a need for a translation and
> even that no translation is better.
Yes. It is the reason why hardware "comes back after the 2 week
checking". Fortunately.
> In any case I am not convinced that this discussion belongs to
> fedora-devel-list, although I am not sure that there exists a list about
> those kind of issues.
>
"Fedora-devel" implies not home enthusiasts only. Normally a lot of
things we use in some non-home place, and all such places are affected.
Consider the situation: you go to your employer and say "I want to help
to develop Fedora, let's change our, say RHEL2, server to Fedora 7, I
can guarantee that I'm skilled enough to support this". What the
employer shoild answer? "No, I don't want troubles wiith policy, because
your Fedora is not accompanied with any hard copy legal documents". :(
The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
packages. You could systematically go through and print off each of
these.
It's a bit hard for Fedora to distribute hard copy material given that
Fedora doesn't distribute anything physical.
josh
9:58 a.m.
Josh Boyer wrote:
The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
packages. You could systematically go through and print off each of
these.
In general, some of packages can have its unique licenses, which
compatible with Fedora, but have its own text...
It's a bit hard for Fedora to distribute hard copy material given
that
Fedora doesn't distribute anything physical.
But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and certify.
Moreover, there are enough troubles with "Fedora in production
environment" due to innovations/stabilities. An addition of legal issues
can just kill it.
Theoretically, it can lead to a situation, when RHEL, based on Fedora as
the upstream, will be based on distro which actually is not used/tested
anywhere in business/production.
~buc
10:08 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
> The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
> packages. You could systematically go through and print off each of
> these.
>
>
In general, some of packages can have its unique licenses, which
compatible with Fedora, but have its own text...
True.
> It's a bit hard for Fedora to distribute hard copy material
given that
> Fedora doesn't distribute anything physical.
>
But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and certify.
I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid US
born citizen.
Moreover, there are enough troubles with "Fedora in production
environment" due to innovations/stabilities. An addition of legal issues
can just kill it.
Theoretically, it can lead to a situation, when RHEL, based on Fedora as
the upstream, will be based on distro which actually is not used/tested
anywhere in business/production.
I understand your concern, but unfortunately I don't see how Fedora as a
project can really help here...
josh
11:43 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
> > packages. You could systematically go through and print off each of
> > these.
> But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and
certify.
I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid US
born citizen.
While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license
language?
Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
Licenses?
As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to "US
courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd presume US laws
would
prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)?
Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses" in Fedora
packages.
Ralf
1:16 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
> > > packages. You could systematically go through and print off each of
> > > these.
> > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and certify.
>
> I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid US
> born citizen.
While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license language?
Not that I know of.
Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
Licenses?
I actually think this depends on the license itself. E.g. you cannot
use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the
FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid.
As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to
"US
courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd presume US laws
would
prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)?
English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US.
Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses"
in Fedora
packages.
I don't see a problem with those per-se.
josh
12:54 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 13:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses for
> > > > packages. You could systematically go through and print off each of
> > > > these.
>
> > > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and certify.
> >
> > I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid US
> > born citizen.
> While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license language?
Not that I know of.
> Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
> Licenses?
I actually think this depends on the license itself. E.g. you cannot
use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the
FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid.
> As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to "US
> courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd presume US
laws would
> prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)?
English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US.
So English is
mandated on "legal matters" in the USA, but it's legal to
ship products from inside of the USA (such as Fedora) with licenses in
"foreign languages/scripts"?
> Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only
licenses" in Fedora
> packages.
I don't see a problem with those per-se.
Well, this might not be much of a
problem if things go to court, because
you'll probably need an official translation to a "legally valid
language" and because such court will not necessarily be located inside
of the USA.
But, how do you expect "arbitrary users" to be able to apply such
licenses? You can't seriously expect any arbitrary user to speak any
arbitrary language or read any arbitrary script.
Consider the "Russian case" having popped up in recent days on
fedora-devel. There a user claimed having to "show all licenses of SW
being used in a production environment to the police". While he probably
is able to translate "English", further languages would raise an
additional level of complications.
Ralf
6:42 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 07:54 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 13:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved licenses
for
> > > > > packages. You could systematically go through and print off
each of
> > > > > these.
> >
> > > > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and
certify.
> > >
> > > I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid US
> > > born citizen.
> > While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license language?
>
> Not that I know of.
>
> > Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
> > Licenses?
>
> I actually think this depends on the license itself. E.g. you cannot
> use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the
> FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid.
>
> > As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to "US
> > courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd presume
US laws would
> > prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)?
>
> English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US.
So English is mandated on "legal matters" in the USA, but it's legal to
ship products from inside of the USA (such as Fedora) with licenses in
"foreign languages/scripts"?
> > Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses" in
Fedora
> > packages.
>
> I don't see a problem with those per-se.
Well, this might not be much of a problem if things go to court, because
you'll probably need an official translation to a "legally valid
language" and because such court will not necessarily be located inside
of the USA.
But, how do you expect "arbitrary users" to be able to apply such
licenses? You can't seriously expect any arbitrary user to speak any
arbitrary language or read any arbitrary script.
Consider the "Russian case" having popped up in recent days on
fedora-devel. There a user claimed having to "show all licenses of SW
being used in a production environment to the police". While he probably
is able to translate "English", further languages would raise an
additional level of complications.
What exactly is your point? That was the purpose of this whole
thread...
josh
10:55 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 06:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 07:54 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 13:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > > > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved
licenses for
> > > > > > packages. You could systematically go through and print
off each of
> > > > > > these.
> > >
> > > > > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate and
certify.
> > > >
> > > > I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a stupid
US
> > > > born citizen.
> > > While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license language?
> >
> > Not that I know of.
> >
> > > Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
> > > Licenses?
> >
> > I actually think this depends on the license itself. E.g. you cannot
> > use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the
> > FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid.
> >
> > > As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to
"US
> > > courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd
presume US laws would
> > > prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't know)?
> >
> > English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US.
> So English is mandated on "legal matters" in the USA, but it's legal
to
> ship products from inside of the USA (such as Fedora) with licenses in
> "foreign languages/scripts"?
>
> > > Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses" in
Fedora
> > > packages.
> >
> > I don't see a problem with those per-se.
> Well, this might not be much of a problem if things go to court, because
> you'll probably need an official translation to a "legally valid
> language" and because such court will not necessarily be located inside
> of the USA.
>
> But, how do you expect "arbitrary users" to be able to apply such
> licenses? You can't seriously expect any arbitrary user to speak any
> arbitrary language or read any arbitrary script.
>
> Consider the "Russian case" having popped up in recent days on
> fedora-devel. There a user claimed having to "show all licenses of SW
> being used in a production environment to the police". While he probably
> is able to translate "English", further languages would raise an
> additional level of complications.
What exactly is your point?
In a nutshell:
Fedora ships packages with un-readable, non-verifiable licenses.
Ralf
6:43 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 05:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 06:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 07:54 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 13:16 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 10:08 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > > > > > Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > > > > The Fedora wiki pages link to a list of all approved
licenses for
> > > > > > > packages. You could systematically go through and
print off each of
> > > > > > > these.
> > > >
> > > > > > But it is more hard for individual user to print, translate
and certify.
> > > > >
> > > > > I always forget about translating. I blame it on me being a
stupid US
> > > > > born citizen.
> > > > While we're at it: Does Fedora have a rule on a license
language?
> > >
> > > Not that I know of.
> > >
> > > > Or conversely: Which languages does Fedora accept as valid wrt.
> > > > Licenses?
> > >
> > > I actually think this depends on the license itself. E.g. you cannot
> > > use a translated copy of the GPL unless it has been certified by the
> > > FSF, so by default only the original English version is valid.
> > >
> > > > As RH is located in the USA, I'd presume Fedora to be subject to
"US
> > > > courts" in case of "legal matters" and as such I'd
presume US laws would
> > > > prescribe "English" (and may-be Spanish - I don't
know)?
> > >
> > > English when it comes to "legal matters" in the US.
> > So English is mandated on "legal matters" in the USA, but it's
legal to
> > ship products from inside of the USA (such as Fedora) with licenses in
> > "foreign languages/scripts"?
> >
> > > > Background: We have precedences of "Japanese-only licenses"
in Fedora
> > > > packages.
> > >
> > > I don't see a problem with those per-se.
> > Well, this might not be much of a problem if things go to court, because
> > you'll probably need an official translation to a "legally valid
> > language" and because such court will not necessarily be located inside
> > of the USA.
> >
> > But, how do you expect "arbitrary users" to be able to apply such
> > licenses? You can't seriously expect any arbitrary user to speak any
> > arbitrary language or read any arbitrary script.
> >
> > Consider the "Russian case" having popped up in recent days on
> > fedora-devel. There a user claimed having to "show all licenses of SW
> > being used in a production environment to the police". While he probably
> > is able to translate "English", further languages would raise an
> > additional level of complications.
>
> What exactly is your point?
In a nutshell:
Fedora ships packages with un-readable, non-verifiable licenses.
Hyperbole
josh
9:34 a.m.
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-licens...
Ralf
10:56 a.m.
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-licens...
Me personally? No. But just because you and I can't read it doesn't
make it un-readable and non-verifiable.
josh
11:09 a.m.
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-licens...
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?
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.
Ralf
11:13 a.m.
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-licens...
>
> 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
11:33 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 11:13 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
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-licens...
> >
> > 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?
Yes, but ... the FPC only deals with
questions related to "how to
package" (technical questions) and not with political issues (What to
package and what not) rsp. legal issues (Which licenses are considered
valid.)
In my understanding, the "what" is FESCO's job, the "legal" is
GdK's
job.
Why don't you bring this up as a
proposal. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
1:11 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 18:33 +0200, 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.
> >
> > This would at least enable users to translate it into his native
> > language without major effort.
>
> Aren't you on the Packaging Committee?
Yes, but ... the FPC only deals with questions related to "how to
package" (technical questions) and not with political issues (What to
package and what not) rsp. legal issues (Which licenses are considered
valid.)
In my understanding, the "what" is FESCO's job, the "legal" is
GdK's
job.
You seem to have a good understanding of the issue. There are no rules
that say you can't write a guideline up for submission. And I
personally think something like this will need to go into the Packaging
guidelines anyway, so it can start in the FPC.
josh
11:15 a.m.
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?
Rahul
11:39 a.m.
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
11:51 a.m.
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
11:57 a.m.
Mamoru Tasaka writes:
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.....
Well, that's hardly surprising: it's not the FSF's mission to review
other people's licences. Is it really quite impossible to relicense
this package using one of the well-known free licences?
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
noon
Andrew Haley wrote:
Mamoru Tasaka writes:
> 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.....
Well, that's hardly surprising: it's not the FSF's mission to review
other people's licences.
It is. It is something they have agreed to do and they have done so
repeatedly whenever we asked them.
Rahul
12:05 p.m.
(Sorry, I sent to Andrew directly. I re-send this
to fedel list)
Andrew Haley wrote, at 05/15/2007 01:57 AM +9:00:
Mamoru Tasaka writes:
> 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.....
Well, that's hardly surprising: it's not the FSF's mission to review
other people's licences. Is it really quite impossible to relicense
this package using one of the well-known free licences?
Andrew.
(Just note that I have not submitted the review request of this
package and I won't do until this license issue is resolved)
I asked the developer to change the license to GPL or something,
but the developer said "I don't want to change this license"......
And note that it is not the first time for me that I asked to Callaway
about the translation of license originally written in Japanese and
he asked FSF about the translation (not mecab package)
Mamoru
12:35 p.m.
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.
If you think the English-only GPL has some power internationally, you
have to accept the corrollary: other single-langage licenses have power
in the USA despite not being written in English. And the only document
that will have any legal value is the original licence in its original
langage (with translations from locally-legaly-accredited entities)
You want to "Fix" the problem you do what Mandriva did: have dedicated
packages for each license. And include there proposed translations of
the root document (which may or may not be in english). Ideally done by
accredited people for each locale.
Mandating English is just a stupid way to annoy local juridictions and
remind them they have laws requiring documents in their own language
(Yes every country has those including sometimes import laws forbidding
untranslated stuff. The EU is one example.)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
12:46 p.m.
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?
Rahul
12:52 p.m.
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.
12:57 p.m.
Simo Sorce wrote:
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.
Fedora does not have the legal resources to pursue translations of every
new license that people come up. If the developer does not want to have
this trouble then they should just adopt more commonly used licenses
instead of insisting on more unique licenses that adds to the burden of
maintainers, redistributors and increasing the potential for Free
software silos.
We cannot accept the legal risk of including software under licenses
that we don't understand.
Rahul
1:25 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> 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.
Fedora does not have the legal resources to pursue translations of every
new license that people come up. If the developer does not want to have
this trouble then they should just adopt more commonly used licenses
instead of insisting on more unique licenses that adds to the burden of
maintainers, redistributors and increasing the potential for Free
software silos.
We cannot accept the legal risk of including software under licenses
that we don't understand.
I guess Fedora can set up a rule for which software that do not have the
binding license in English cannot be accepted.
But I don't think you will please developers of other countries.
I think a compromises should be attempted.
Simo.
12:58 p.m.
Rahul Sundaram wrote, at 05/15/2007 02:46 AM +9:00:
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.
The trouble is that while many people cannot judge if the license can
be accepted if no translation into English is attached, many people
also cannot judge if the *translation itself* is correct......
Actually I have one package in Fedora where translation itself
became a problem. More precisely, the license of the software
is originally written in Japanese, and the software also has
English-translated version. However the content differs in some
points and the English-translated version is rejected by debian...
I don't write the details any further, but I just note that
the license was finally accepted by Callaway.
What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software
is
proprietary?
So even I translate the license into English, perhaps almost no
one can check my translation...
Mamoru
1:07 p.m.
Le mardi 15 mai 2007 à 02:58 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka a écrit :
The trouble is that while many people cannot judge if the license
can
be accepted if no translation into English is attached, many people
also cannot judge if the *translation itself* is correct......
That's why a legal document can not be translated by just anyone, and
certainly not a bunch of hackers who are not native english speakers.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:04 p.m.
Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 21:45 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> 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.
And it's the same requirement for legal entities that are not based in
the US and are Fedora or RHEL users. Do you think they don't need to
check licensing too?
What if a Japanese license including text that says that the software
is
proprietary?
Then you do the same thing as everyone else - you pay a
legally-accredited translator to translate, you don't require a change
in the core license.
Or you do the sane no-offensive neutral thing - you setup the
infrastructure so everyone gets translations.
Why do you think the GPL does not include a "litigation must happen in
$foo court of $bar city of $baz country" clause? That "good" idea is
just a great way to have many people angry at you.
Legal code is not software code. It's not english-centric.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:13 p.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
And it's the same requirement for legal entities that are not
based in
the US and are Fedora or RHEL users. Do you think they don't need to
check licensing too?
Sure they do. From the Fedora legal perspective what legal entities
outside of US do is none of our concern.
Then you do the same thing as everyone else - you pay a
legally-accredited translator to translate, you don't require a change
in the core license.
I didn't require a change to the core license. Who told you I was? What
I wanted was a official translation. That's the minimum we need to
ensure that we don't include software under licenses don't understand or
not enforceable.
I am just not sure we have the legal and financial resources to pay for
translations every time we include new software under regional licenses
that people cook up. It's time to get back to Red Hat legal and asked
for their opinion I guess.
Rahul
1:26 p.m.
Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
I am just not sure we have the legal and financial resources to pay
for
translations every time we include new software under regional licenses
that people cook up.
Why to you think you can trust just any random translation? Can as well
process licenses through the fish.
I'd have thought all the soap opera around the meaning of Free in
English (which speakers of other langages watch with horror) would have
taught people some caution.
The process should probably start with review by local FSF chapters,
then production of authoritative translations if the license checks,
then bundling of those translations (not limited to English) in a
license package.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:28 p.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> I am just not sure we have the legal and financial resources to pay for
> translations every time we include new software under regional licenses
> that people cook up.
Why to you think you can trust just any random translation? Can as well
process licenses through the fish.
Again, I said official translation. Did you even bother reading what you
are responding to?
Rahul
1:38 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 23:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>
>> I am just not sure we have the legal and financial resources to pay for
>> translations every time we include new software under regional licenses
>> that people cook up.
>
> Why to you think you can trust just any random translation? Can as well
> process licenses through the fish.
Again, I said official translation. Did you even bother reading what you
are responding to?
The problem is in who can produce these translations.
You can't force upstream, also because it may just cost to much for Joe
casual developer, or for any other reason.
If the packages is good enough and worth including in Fedora and a local
FS savvy person can tell that the license is not crap, than I guess you
have enough filters to be willing to see if someone can sponsor a legal
translation for Fedora's organization records.
After all it is Fedora that have a problem with a foreign language
license not the upstream distributor.
Simo.
1:38 p.m.
Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 14 mai 2007 à 23:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>
>> I am just not sure we have the legal and financial resources to pay for
>> translations every time we include new software under regional licenses
>> that people cook up.
>
> Why to you think you can trust just any random translation? Can as well
> process licenses through the fish.
Again, I said official translation. Did you even bother reading what you
are responding to?
Official meaning what?
If it's official as in legally binding wise upstreams will refuse to
commit to a document in a langage they don't master (even the FSF is
careful enough to point out there is a single binding document, the
english one)
If it's official as in "produced by the original hacker but not legally
binding" the fish may be just as good for a legal analysis by Fedora.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:45 p.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Official meaning what?
From upstream. Next time do read my mails completely before responding
and avoid making assumptions about what I am conveying.
If it's official as in legally binding wise upstreams will refuse
to
commit to a document in a langage they don't master
This is just your assumption. They might. They might not. If they do,
well and good. If not, we might choose to just block that on review.
There might be possible compromises which doesn't affect us legally. We
need to ask Red Hat legal that.
Rahul
2:11 p.m.
Le mardi 15 mai 2007 à 00:15 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Official meaning what?
From upstream.
Which does not mean it has more than incidental legal value (courts will
wisely refuse to consider any translation but the one done by an
accredited expert except if the "from upstream" translation is an actual
binding legal doc)
Even if you manage to get people to commit to a legal document in a
foreign tongue and offload the translation risk the PR fallout in case
of conflict is going to be ugly.
Next time do read my mails completely before responding
and avoid making assumptions about what I am conveying.
Pot. Kettle
--
Nicolas Mailhot
2:29 p.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Even if you manage to get people to commit to a legal document in a
foreign tongue and offload the translation risk the PR fallout in case
of conflict is going to be ugly.
Legal risk is different from PR risk. We shouldn't mix them.
> Next time do read my mails completely before responding
> and avoid making assumptions about what I am conveying.
Pot. Kettle
I didn't assume anything about what you said while you clearly did
assume that I was asking to replace the core license or that I was going
to advocate for random translations.
Rahul
2:41 p.m.
Le mardi 15 mai 2007 à 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Even if you manage to get people to commit to a legal document in a
> foreign tongue and offload the translation risk the PR fallout in case
> of conflict is going to be ugly.
Legal risk is different from PR risk. We shouldn't mix them.
Even in this case you'll probably get both.
>> Next time do read my mails completely before responding
>> and avoid making assumptions about what I am conveying.
>
> Pot. Kettle
I didn't assume anything about what you said while you clearly did
assume that I was asking to replace the core license or that I was going
to advocate for random translations.
And exactly how a software project (composed mainly of people that chose
tech over literature or law) and chose a license in its own language
(presumably because they didn't feel confortable with English) is going
to produce anything but a random translation? Especially if you tell
them it's not binding?
--
Nicolas Mailhot
2:52 p.m.
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mardi 15 mai 2007 à 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> Even if you manage to get people to commit to a legal document in a
>> foreign tongue and offload the translation risk the PR fallout in case
>> of conflict is going to be ugly.
> Legal risk is different from PR risk. We shouldn't mix them.
Even in this case you'll probably get both.
It is probably going to rain tomorrow too.
And exactly how a software project (composed mainly of people that
chose
tech over literature or law) and chose a license in its own language
(presumably because they didn't feel confortable with English) is going
to produce anything but a random translation? Especially if you tell
them it's not binding?
How exactly are people who choose technology over literature or law even
going to write a proper license in their own language? If you want good
licenses in any language you need to talk to a lawyer. So that's the
process they need to follow.
Rahul
3:16 p.m.
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 01:22 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 15 mai 2007 à 00:59 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> Even if you manage to get people to commit to a legal document in a
>>> foreign tongue and offload the translation risk the PR fallout in case
>>> of conflict is going to be ugly.
>> Legal risk is different from PR risk. We shouldn't mix them.
>
> Even in this case you'll probably get both.
It is probably going to rain tomorrow too.
> And exactly how a software project (composed mainly of people that chose
> tech over literature or law) and chose a license in its own language
> (presumably because they didn't feel confortable with English) is going
> to produce anything but a random translation? Especially if you tell
> them it's not binding?
How exactly are people who choose technology over literature or law even
going to write a proper license in their own language? If you want good
licenses in any language you need to talk to a lawyer. So that's the
process they need to follow.
Yet this is different then having a legal translation in English.
You need a lawyer that master English and knows how to express legal
concept in English but presumably related to local laws.
This is not something you can find easily in many places. Lawyers do not
need to master any other language but their own usually.
Or, you need a lawyer that Master both English and your language and
also knows about a different law system as well as his own, which is
_rare_.
There are cases where you cannot reasonably ask upstream to provide a
legally binding translated license (I'd say most of the cases).
Now you can, of course , ask them to trust licenses written for US
Common Law and let them hope they apply cleanly in their legal system.
But then, they have all the rights to decline the request.
Simo.
3:18 p.m.
Simo Sorce wrote:
Now you can, of course , ask them to trust licenses written for US
Common Law and let them hope they apply cleanly in their legal system.
But then, they have all the rights to decline the request.
Right. We then decline to include their software in Fedora. Do you see
another way to deal with this without involving Red Hat legal?
Rahul
3:29 p.m.
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 01:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> Now you can, of course , ask them to trust licenses written for US
> Common Law and let them hope they apply cleanly in their legal system.
> But then, they have all the rights to decline the request.
Right. We then decline to include their software in Fedora. Do you see
another way to deal with this without involving Red Hat legal?
We shouldn't abuse Red Hat legal, but discarding the option a priori
seem a bit hard to me.
What you are implying is that Fedora is an "English" only distribution.
Well, while I have no problems with English, this seem a bit
discriminatory and I don't like it.
I think we can be more pragmatic and be open, and deal with each issue
when it comes up. If, and when, the number of packages with foreign
language licenses will be too high, then we can reopen the discussion
and see if there are more creative ideas on how to solve this issue.
Simo.
3:36 p.m.
Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 01:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>
>> Now you can, of course , ask them to trust licenses written for US
>> Common Law and let them hope they apply cleanly in their legal system.
>> But then, they have all the rights to decline the request.
> Right. We then decline to include their software in Fedora. Do you see
> another way to deal with this without involving Red Hat legal?
We shouldn't abuse Red Hat legal, but discarding the option a priori
seem a bit hard to me.
What you are implying is that Fedora is an "English" only distribution.
Well, while I have no problems with English, this seem a bit
discriminatory and I don't like it.
Nope. I have been a translator before myself. That's far from what I am
saying. What I am saying that is the Red Hat is a US based legal entity
for Fedora and English is mandated as the language for legal
communication in that region.
Even having a single software in a license that we can't understand
legally is not good for us to enforce anything or avoid risks. It is not
a question of pragmatism, discrimination of openness.
Rahul
9:42 a.m.
Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 18:58 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
I understand your concern, but unfortunately I don't see how Fedora as a
project can really help here...
Sorry, I missed this thread and most probably what I am writing here
does not belong to this mailing list devoted to Fedora developing.
I know that GPL was translated to Russian several times (the first
time as I remember was in 1989). I think it is better ask FSF about
the issues. By the way Richard Stallman participated in creation of
first Russian copyright law (about 1991) through prof. Ivannikov who
was an official expert of such law. The first law was quite liberal.
Now the situation is quit different. Russia has been trying to become
a member of WTO for long time (about 10 years). Currently Russia has
biggest unregulated issues with the USA which is pushing software
piracy agenda.
I think Russian police knows well what is Linux. The problem is their
attitude to Linux.
Here is the typical example.
http://pcnews.ru/news/linux-microsoft-open-170187.html
In brief, the russian police believes that Linux is a sign of ongoing
criminal activity. Here is a babel fish translation of the news.
May 10, 2007.
The conference of the division chiefs of the Moscow police took place
on Friday. The Moscow poliece chief Vladimir Pronin gathered
conference for determining the new tasks to the colleagues resulting
from the new federal law about the copyright protection. On the
conference lieutenant general Pronin conducted the associative
parallel that software pirates are rapers and killers. This conclusion
Pronin drew, on the basis of the measures of the punishments, which
the state introduced. Checking all companies and organizations of
Moscow to the object of the observance of the copyright law will
become the first stage on the fight with the piracy.
At the conference they noted that the determination of status of some
Microsoft program products is already worked out. Complicated
situations appear, when an enterprise uses operating system Linux.
Pronin is iron confident, that the enterprise, which uses Linux, has
something to hide. Police experience showed that Linux is used by the
"dark companies", which carry out pornography, by a money laundering,
by hackers and so on.
One of the representatives of police division commented about Linux:
"The usage of Linux according to the Russian laws, unfortunately, is
not a crime. However, this fact testifies that the user fears that
those checking can find something forbidden on his computer and the
user desires to hide that. One should place all such hackers on the
calculation and conduct the periodic inspections, carry out
explanatory conversations. Linux on the computer as storing
pornography according to our laws is not a crime, but Linux and the
pronograpy are closely connected with the activity of production,
circulation, propagation, seducing young and that is absolutely
illegal".
10:32 a.m.
Hi Vladimir Makarov!
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:42:01AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote next:
Here is the typical example.
http://pcnews.ru/news/linux-microsoft-open-170187.html
Please, DO NOT READ that.
It's very famoust 1st April joke.
But issue in other words in the corruption.
I mean the Microsoft's software (due to its fee > 0) can be used for money
back (also called "reverts").
I try to explain this.
Person A and company C agree to buy some software for company B. Note: A is
a official workers on C. The B write bill with higher price (about 30%).
After C pay to software approx 130% of price the part of that price A and
people from B share between each other. Understandable?
The OSS model is not acceptable for this financial tricks.
--
With best regards,
Andy Shevchenko. mailto: andy(a)smile.org.ua
10:47 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 18:32 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Hi Vladimir Makarov!
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:42:01AM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote next:
> Here is the typical example.
> http://pcnews.ru/news/linux-microsoft-open-170187.html
Please, DO NOT READ that.
It's very famoust 1st April joke.
But issue in other words in the corruption.
I mean the Microsoft's software (due to its fee > 0) can be used for money
back (also called "reverts").
I try to explain this.
Person A and company C agree to buy some software for company B. Note: A is
a official workers on C. The B write bill with higher price (about 30%).
After C pay to software approx 130% of price the part of that price A and
people from B share between each other. Understandable?
The OSS model is not acceptable for this financial tricks.
Oh it is, you can bill for services you never give, it is the same
thing.
You don't need to exchange physical goods to be able to issue false
bills with the intent of committing fraud against the tax department or
your own company.
Simo.
12:59 p.m.
Replying to Andy Shevchenko:
But issue in other words in the corruption.
I mean the Microsoft's software (due to its fee > 0) can be used for money
back (also called "reverts").
Also called "kickbacks".
I try to explain this.
Person A and company C agree to buy some software for company B. Note: A is
a official workers on C. The B write bill with higher price (about 30%).
After C pay to software approx 130% of price the part of that price A and
people from B share between each other. Understandable?
You are such an optimist... 30% kickbacks is so 2001... now it's way
more :)
The OSS model is not acceptable for this financial tricks.
Jokes aside, yes. Because free software is, essentially, free, any
person in power of making decisions (on the fixed salary less than
$800/mo) don't have any incentive to go for it.
Technical arguments don't matter.
--
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key <- my pgp key
This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
9:44 a.m.
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I know that GPL was translated to Russian several times
Actually, notarially
certified translations of GPL have been appeared
only recently.
I think Russian police knows well what is Linux.
Unfortunately,
it is wrong assumption.
A policeman, who checks the computers later, either already know about
Linux, or learns during the check. The problem is the "confiscating
policeman" (normally *not* software expert). Even if he know about
Linux, he have a formal occasion for confiscation. (BTW, just another
case which feeds corruption).
~buc
10:33 a.m.
I would also highly recommend contacting the FSF on this matter. Perhaps
they can make a recommendation on what action should be taken. We can
definitely do things to help on our side, such as the document proposed by
Benjamin Kosnik. However, this affects all open source software and not
just Fedora. Here is the e-mail address for contacting FSF on this issue:
licensing(a)fsf.org
Hopefully, printing/signing the GPL (or whatever license is used) will
suffice. If this is the case, we may be able to write a small
script/application included in Fedora that scans the License field on
installed RPMs to and generates a list of what licenses apply and a
verbose flag that also specifies what software falls under each license.
-- Frederick F. Kautz IV
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:28:45PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Randy Wyatt wrote:
>> Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
> Yep, but GPL is not approrved officially in our (and many other)
> countries. I know that some users do notarially certified translation of
> GPL, but it costs money too. (Hopefully the ranslation of GPL only is
> enough, not BSD, MPL etc.)
since Russia is a member of the Berne Convention, if I recall well, some
lawyer consider that there shouldn't be a need for a translation and
even that no translation is better. I know that it depends on the lawyer
since, in France there is a dispute against those who think that since
the GPL has some clauses that don't translate easily to french law it is
not applicable and those who think that under the Bern Convention the
GPL should be reinterpretated in the context of the French laws.
In any case I am not convinced that this discussion belongs to
fedora-devel-list, although I am not sure that there exists a list about
those kind of issues.
--
Pat
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
10:59 a.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:33 -0600, Frederick F. Kautz IV wrote:
I would also highly recommend contacting the FSF on this matter.
Perhaps
they can make a recommendation on what action should be taken. We can
definitely do things to help on our side, such as the document proposed by
Benjamin Kosnik. However, this affects all open source software and not
just Fedora. Here is the e-mail address for contacting FSF on this issue:
licensing(a)fsf.org
Hopefully, printing/signing the GPL (or whatever license is used) will
suffice. If this is the case, we may be able to write a small
script/application included in Fedora that scans the License field on
installed RPMs to and generates a list of what licenses apply and a
verbose flag that also specifies what software falls under each license.
I don't think you need each license printed, not even the GPL.
This is the police wondering if the software on the PC has been legally
obtained.
We probably just need a document clearly written, with the right legal
words for Russia, where Fedora grants the user the right to use the
distribution as a whole on any number of machines, for an unlimited
time, and includes grants to install updates _and_ upgrades as well
under the same terms.
Have the same document available on a clearly recognizable Fedora domain
name, so that you can show the police that it is not a forged document,
and on the site only may be have another page with the detailed set of
licenses for the picky ones.
Simo.
11:18 a.m.
Simo Sorce wrote:
We probably just need a document clearly written, with the right
legal
words for Russia,
Not for Russia only! In general, such a document could be useful for all
supported locales.
where Fedora grants the user the right to use the
distribution as a whole on any number of machines, for an unlimited
time, and includes grants to install updates _and_ upgrades as well
under the same terms.
Have the same document available on a clearly recognizable Fedora domain
name, so that you can show the police that it is not a forged document,
and on the site only may be have another page with the detailed set of
licenses for the picky ones.
~buc
11:26 a.m.
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
> We probably just need a document clearly written, with the right legal
> words for Russia,
Not for Russia only! In general, such a document could be useful for all
supported locales.
> where Fedora grants the user the right to use the
> distribution as a whole on any number of machines, for an unlimited
> time, and includes grants to install updates _and_ upgrades as well
> under the same terms.
>
> Have the same document available on a clearly recognizable Fedora domain
> name, so that you can show the police that it is not a forged document,
> and on the site only may be have another page with the detailed set of
> licenses for the picky ones.
Sounds like an interesting graphics arts project. A do-it-yourself
official licence kit for free software. It would need lots of stickers,
graphics, and the other useless dohickies that come with the "real"
software licences. (The image that comes to mind is a long medaeval
scroll with lots of illumination, wax seals and the like.)
--
"ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C..."
- Alan Cox
8:35 a.m.
Randy Wyatt wrote:
Why wouldn't a hard copy of the GPL suffice ?
Because such laws are usually made by direct command from BSA and
contain specific wording.
I heard some similar scary things about a law in my country (Romania)
where exist a national registry for computer programs and you are
supposed to use only software registered there. I don't know much about
it as I am not an expert in law, but it seems the law is ignored by
users and not enforced against free software (so far).
On 5/11/07, *Dmitry Butskoy* <buc(a)odusz.so-cdu.ru
<mailto:buc@odusz.so-cdu.ru>> wrote:
The using of software in business and production environment can be a
subject for legislative regulation. It can lead to some legal troubles
of using of distributions like Fedora.
Recently the appropriate laws in my country (Russia) have been
significantly toughened. Now the police can check for illegal software
usage by their own initiative (without request from the owner). The tax
inspection demands that software should be registered at accounts
departments.
--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro
9:26 a.m.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 04:35:06PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
supposed to use only software registered there. I don't know much
about
it as I am not an expert in law, but it seems the law is ignored by
users and not enforced against free software (so far).
That would appear to violate EU single market law fortunately so hopefully
its a byproduct of a byegone and dead age..
9:02 a.m.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:01:24PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
During such a checking, the user is obliged now to show all hardcopy
license documents (with original signatures and stamps). But there are
no any such things for distros like Fedora, which have been just
downloaded from Internet, hence the user shows nothing. In this
situation the police *must* temporarily confiscate system blocks (up to
2 weeks) for further checking...
Certainly, after the checking period all hardware comes back, but such
troubles are not allowed for normal business.
Are there any similar troubles in other countries?
Not that I am aware of. There are plenty of countries where the state is
empowered to enforce copyright but they don't usually require bogus paperwork.
How it can be avoided?
Print out your own copy ? Or if there is a requirement that it comes from
the "supplier" then perhaps someone can prepare a suitable example on the
Fedora website that anyone can download, sign for themselves and print out.
I've met people who worked in companies with similar idiotic audit policies
and they used to just print out the GPL
Since you apparently have a boxed set supplier who is empowered somehow to
print such certificates then presumably anyone else can with a bit of thinking
set up the same way.
Alan
9:32 a.m.
Simo Source wrote:
Meanwhile I guess the easiest thing you can do is to print the
license
agreement shown to you by the fedora installer, in English, and show it
to the authorities.
...
Alan Cox wrote:
Print out your own copy ? Or if there is a requirement that it comes
from
the "supplier" then perhaps someone can prepare a suitable example on the
Fedora website that anyone can download, sign for themselves and print out.
In other words, print some couple of documents (license agreement + GPL,
at least) and accompany them by their notarially certified translation
(just for police who do not know English)...
Ideally, it could be nice to have some "official supplier" for Fedora,
who can send the user some hard copy document in its language... In
other words, to create all needed translations at once, and then send
hard copy (with the individual user's requisites) by request. Perhaps
with a little cost...
~buc
9:42 a.m.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:32:08PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
In other words, print some couple of documents (license agreement +
GPL,
at least) and accompany them by their notarially certified translation
(just for police who do not know English)...
Do you need the entire text ?
Would a page on the web site with a print your own that only had the following
translated be sufficient ? (and possibly an arty 'looks like a legal document'
background)
[and I'm not a lawyer so legal would probably play with this text and don't
take it as anything but an idea]
'The Fedora Project hereby certifies that $ORGANISATION as recipient of
license #$LICENSE has the right to use, modify and redistribute the Fedora
software in accordance with the precise terms found at [URL], and that this
license is for an unlimited number of users and systems'
[Fedora Project Contact Details]
[Users filled in details]
[Date]
Alan
10:08 a.m.
Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:32:08PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> In other words, print some couple of documents (license agreement + GPL,
> at least) and accompany them by their notarially certified translation
> (just for police who do not know English)...
>
Do you need the entire text ?
Would a page on the web site with a print your own that only had the following
translated be sufficient ? (and possibly an arty 'looks like a legal document'
background)
[and I'm not a lawyer so legal would probably play with this text and don't
take it as anything but an idea]
'The Fedora Project hereby certifies that $ORGANISATION as recipient of
license #$LICENSE has the right to use, modify and redistribute the Fedora
software in accordance with the precise terms found at [URL], and that this
license is for an unlimited number of users and systems'
[Fedora Project Contact Details]
[Users filled in details]
[Date]
AFAIK sometimes it is enough to send a document by fax...
The Fedora user could fill some form on the web site, and receive an
image. If the hard copy is strong required, such an image (with stamps
etc.) could be send for user physically.
The idea is similar to how RHCE certificates are sent (first an image,
then hard copy by post).
~buc
6:31 p.m.
On 2007-05-11, 14:32 GMT, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
In other words, print some couple of documents (license
agreement + GPL, at least) and accompany them by their
notarially certified translation (just for police who do not
know English)...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA looks pretty
good to me. It's even called EULA which should make policemen
happy :-).
Ideally, it could be nice to have some "official supplier"
for Fedora,
who can send the user some hard copy document in its language... In
other words, to create all needed translations at once, and then send
hard copy (with the individual user's requisites) by request. Perhaps
with a little cost...
Hey, you can make even your own business, selling hardcopies of
Fedora EULA :-).
Matej
9:52 a.m.
Print out your own copy ? Or if there is a requirement that it comes
from
the "supplier" then perhaps someone can prepare a suitable example on the
Fedora website that anyone can download, sign for themselves and print out.
I volunteer to make such a document for Fedora, as elaborate as is still
printable with inkscape, if provided with appropriate wording.
Dimitry, can you send me or post and example of what it is expected in
this certificate? A good place to start might be the certificates used
by other Free software distributors in your country.
I've had to do similar things in my tangles with French fonctionnaires.
I can tell you right now that attaching a shiny metallic stamp will
improve your chances 2x.
-benjamin
10:42 a.m.
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Print out your own copy ? Or if there is a requirement that it comes
> from
> the "supplier" then perhaps someone can prepare a suitable example on
> the
> Fedora website that anyone can download, sign for themselves and
> print out.
I volunteer to make such a document for Fedora, as elaborate as is
still printable with inkscape, if provided with appropriate wording.
Dimitry, can you send me or post and example of what it is expected in
this certificate? A good place to start might be the certificates used
by other Free software distributors in your country.
Yes, I have some examples (in
Russian). But there is no guarantee that
it contains "currently expected" text...
As I understand, when our local distributors say "don't download, buy
our box with a paper", it is some kind of business for them -- i.e. to
intimidate users and to force them to buy their boxes instead of free
download. Currently I am even not sure that such a solution actually
work, but they recommend it.
Actually, I heard about several precedents, where users was affected by
hard copy absence, but is is not too often, at least now. Therefore I
decide to post here about the problem, to prevent (at least partially)
possible user troubles in the future.
what it is expected in this certificate?
Expected by whom?... By the checking policeman?..
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.
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...
~buc
10:56 a.m.
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:42:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
As I understand, when our local distributors say "don't
download, buy
our box with a paper", it is some kind of business for them -- i.e. to
intimidate users and to force them to buy their boxes instead of free
download. Currently I am even not sure that such a solution actually
work, but they recommend it.
If Russian bussiness people are like everyone else then I bet there are
even some enterprising ones pushing the police to "enforce" this ..
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
...... "
(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
12:52 p.m.
Alan Cox wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 07:42:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> 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)
Personally, I think it would be cool if each Fedora release (perhaps
even starting with the upcoming F7) had an official set of CD/DVD media
cover images (one image per iso). And, not only would it look good, it
might help mitigate some of the harassment that some people get with
Fedora looking like something "downloaded off the 'net".
Even cooler if they use the specific release artwork... especially since
the Fedora releases have had some pretty cool stuff.
12:52 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 11:52 -0600, Rick L Vinyard Jr wrote:
Personally, I think it would be cool if each Fedora release (perhaps
even starting with the upcoming F7) had an official set of CD/DVD media
cover images (one image per iso). And, not only would it look good, it
might help mitigate some of the harassment that some people get with
Fedora looking like something "downloaded off the 'net".
Even cooler if they use the specific release artwork... especially since
the Fedora releases have had some pretty cool stuff.
You mean like you can find at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/CDArt
:-)
Jeremy
7:17 p.m.
Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 11:52 -0600, Rick L Vinyard Jr wrote:
> Personally, I think it would be cool if each Fedora release (perhaps
> even starting with the upcoming F7) had an official set of CD/DVD media
> cover images (one image per iso). And, not only would it look good, it
> might help mitigate some of the harassment that some people get with
> Fedora looking like something "downloaded off the 'net".
>
> Even cooler if they use the specific release artwork... especially since
> the Fedora releases have had some pretty cool stuff.
>
You mean like you can find at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/CDArt
:-)
Jeremy
Yeah, something just like that. How long before it's available? :)
On a more serious note... I think it would get a lot more exposure if
they were in the same directories as the isos... or more realistically,
in a subdirectory if there were too many language specific versions.
8:49 p.m.
On 5/11/07, Rick L Vinyard Jr <rvinyard(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
On a more serious note... I think it would get a lot more exposure
if
they were in the same directories as the isos... or more realistically,
in a subdirectory if there were too many language specific versions.
Howabout bundled with the torrents?
-jef
10:48 p.m.
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 5/11/07, Rick L Vinyard Jr <rvinyard(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> On a more serious note... I think it would get a lot more exposure if
> they were in the same directories as the isos... or more realistically,
> in a subdirectory if there were too many language specific versions.
Howabout bundled with the torrents?
-jef
Why not?
Also, I didn't see them in either fedora-logos or redhat-artwork.
The work at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/CDArt is pretty
sharp... IMHO it deserves wider distribution.
5:14 a.m.
On 12/05/07, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/11/07, Rick L Vinyard Jr <rvinyard(a)cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
> On a more serious note... I think it would get a lot more exposure if
> they were in the same directories as the isos... or more realistically,
> in a subdirectory if there were too many language specific versions.
Howabout bundled with the torrents?
+1
Cheers,
Chris
--
http://www.chruz.com
3:08 p.m.
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
2:33 a.m.
Hey dudes.
You'll find an A4-sized certificate, based on the Fedora EULA, and an
A9-sized certificate of authenticity here:
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/fedora_certificates/
The plan would be to combine:
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/fedora_certificates/a4_certificate_3_blank.jpg
with the correct, locale-specific EULA, like so for en_US:
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/fedora_certificates/a4_certificate_3_en_US.jpg
Then, for the individual machines you should be able to make stickers with:
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/fedora_certificates/a9_certificate.jpg
I suspect you'll find that this will go down better with pencil-pushers
if you add some flash. Adding a metallic strip behind the A9 sticker
will do nicely.
The inkscape SVG files are in this directory, so if you need to edit
this or alter the image use the inkscape file, not the jpg. In
particular, you'll need to do the edits for the Russian locale yourself,
as I didn't see the EULA for other locales.
It would be pretty fun to print out a sheet of the A9 stickers and hand
them out to fedora users at the next FUDcon or linux meeting. It would
be even more fun to have an "authentication" party with libations, since
the idea of an "authentic" linux install is pretty humorous to me.
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.
... of course, doing this server-side and either having the option to
print out the fancy-EULA from the anaconda install screen or adding it
as an option/carrot to the smote agreement would be pretty slick.
However, I leave this bit to others.
best,
-benjamin
1:58 p.m.
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
Hey dudes.
You'll find an A4-sized certificate, based on the Fedora EULA, and an
A9-sized certificate of authenticity here:
http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/fedora_certificates/
Note that this EULA requires modifications for Fedora 7 release. We need
to replace all occurrences of "Fedora Core" with "Fedora" and add a
section on firmware.
Rahul
3:42 a.m.
> http://people.redhat.com/bkoz/fedora_certificates/
Note that this EULA requires modifications for Fedora 7 release. We need
to replace all occurrences of "Fedora Core" with "Fedora" and add a
section on firmware.
These certificates should be considered for demonstration purposes only.
Unlike the EULA....
I'm just taking the text verbatim from what is existing presently on the
web. If it's not right on the web, it should be fixed pronto.
Other parts of this conversation have pointed out the
weaknesses/inapplicability of a US-legal language EULA worldwide.
Hopefully this issue will be fixed, or a plan or strategy devised for
legal support in all Fedora locales.
If I had valid language for other locales, I'd be happy to come up with
certificates of authenticity for them.
best,
-benjamin
10:59 a.m.
Yes, I have some examples (in Russian). But there is no guarantee
that
it contains "currently expected" text...
It looks like Alan has the beginnings of something that we can use for
the text.
In the meantime, you should try to scan/take photos of these
certificates, put them up on the web, and send a link to the images to
this thread.
In addition, if translations to English could be provided then that
would be very helpful.
As I understand, when our local distributors say "don't
download, buy
our box with a paper", it is some kind of business for them -- i.e. to
intimidate users and to force them to buy their boxes instead of free
download. Currently I am even not sure that such a solution actually
work, but they recommend it.
How unfortunate.
Sadly, that's not something the Fedora project or any of the individuals
associated with it can do anything about.
However, what we can do is come up with an elaborate certificate,
suitable for printing and stickering, capable of being beribboned, etc.
Note this is not an actual legal document.
Expected by whom?... By the checking policeman?..
Yes.
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.
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...
This seems like something that your local linux LUG, Unix group, or EFF
should try to straighten out.
best,
-benjamin
11:34 a.m.
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
In the meantime, you should try to scan/take photos of these
certificates, put them up on the web, and send a link to the images to
this thread.
Well,
Some good example:
(ALTLinux is on of the leading local russian distributions):
in English:
ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt
in Russian:
ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt.ru
~buc
11:37 a.m.
Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> In the meantime, you should try to scan/take photos of these
> certificates, put them up on the web, and send a link to the images to
> this thread.
Well,
Some good example:
(ALTLinux is on of the leading local russian distributions):
in English:
ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt
in Russian:
ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt.ru
We have something similar at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA
Rahul
1:11 p.m.
Hi Rahul Sundaram!
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:07:41PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote next:
We have something similar at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA
That's good sample. But if I
understood Dmitry correctly the EULA should be
'registered' in the Russian officials. The Russian Linux vendors (such as
ALT Linux or ASPLinux) have registered company and the EULA in Russian that
can be approved by police.
--
With best regards,
Andy Shevchenko. mailto: andy(a)smile.org.ua
8:28 p.m.
New subject: Legality of Fedora in production environment - eula
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>
>> In the meantime, you should try to scan/take photos of these
>> certificates, put them up on the web, and send a link to the images
>> to this thread.
>
> Well,
>
> Some good example:
> (ALTLinux is on of the leading local russian distributions):
>
> in English:
> ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt
> in Russian:
> ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt.ru
>
We have something similar at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA
Currently it finishes with:
Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 Fedora Project. All rights reserved.
...
Does this mean changes made in 2006/7 won't be covered ?
Do we need to include any year in which changes/work has been performed
{or perhaps a range}.
I am not sure whether the copyright notice is intended to protect the
EULA, or the fedora distribution itself ;)
From:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc
It suggests only the first year of publishing should be included. But it
isn't clear whether FC6 is a different work to FC7, and hence should
only show it's year of publishing ?
In my mind, FC7 is not a "re-print" of FC6 with some typos fixed - it is
more a new work. What would rh legal say about this ?
DaveT.
12:51 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 20:34 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> In the meantime, you should try to scan/take photos of these
> certificates, put them up on the web, and send a link to the images to
> this thread.
Well,
Some good example:
(ALTLinux is on of the leading local russian distributions):
in English:
ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt
in Russian:
ftp://ftp.altlinux.ru/pub/distributions/ALTLinux/4.0/Server/license.txt.ru
A Russian friend invloved with it just told me that ALT Linux is going
to address the problem in this thread very soon. Maybe it could make
sense coordinating with them and produce something that can be reused by
other free software projects ?
Simo.
9:21 a.m.
Simo Sorce wrote:
A Russian friend invloved with it just told me that ALT Linux is
going
to address the problem in this thread very soon. Maybe it could make
sense coordinating with them and produce something that can be reused by
other free software projects ?
Well, I know this team, I believe that they will try to do something.
But in general, there is an obvious case of the "conflict of interests".
Any Linux/Free-software related group
in my country usually has no sponsor support. Hence such a group is
compelled to earn money independently for the existence. Besides user
support, one of the business is the sale of "software boxes" (CDs of
free software, accompanied with some docs, licenses etc.). The last one
clashes with desire of the user to download something from the Internet
directly. :(
~buc
6:35 p.m.
On 2007-05-11, 15:59 GMT, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
It looks like Alan has the beginnings of something that we can
use for the text.
As a former lawyer I can tell you that hacking on legal contracts
is highly not recommended activity -- there is a reason why
people pay lawyers their fees. There is actually official
apparently lawyer-made document available which is even
conveniently named EULA
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/EULA
Matej
10:57 a.m.
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
The using of software in business and production environment can be a
subject
for legislative regulation. It can lead to some legal troubles of using of
distributions like Fedora.
Recently the appropriate laws in my country (Russia) have been significantly
toughened. Now the police can check for illegal software usage by their own
initiative (without request from the owner). The tax inspection demands that
software should be registered at accounts departments.
During such a checking, the user is obliged now to show all hardcopy license
documents (with original signatures and stamps). But there are no any such
things for distros like Fedora, which have been just downloaded from
Internet, hence the user shows nothing. In this situation the police *must*
temporarily confiscate system blocks (up to 2 weeks) for further checking...
Certainly, after the checking period all hardware comes back, but such
troubles are not allowed for normal business.
Are there any similar troubles in other countries?
How it can be avoided?
Scribus and a color printer? With the proper tools you can make something
that looks "official".
Howe do they know the stamps and discs for the proprietary stuff are
"real".
Sounds like your local vendor is using the bad law to their advantage.
--
"ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C..."
- Alan Cox
11:30 a.m.
Le vendredi 11 mai 2007 à 08:57 -0700, alan a écrit :
Scribus and a color printer? With the proper tools you can make
something
that looks "official".
They are probably trained to recognize inkjet prints, as making
something that looks "official" also occurred to real thieves.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
5:23 a.m.
Am Freitag, den 11.05.2007, 18:30 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
Le vendredi 11 mai 2007 à 08:57 -0700, alan a écrit :
> Scribus and a color printer? With the proper tools you can make something
> that looks "official".
They are probably trained to recognize inkjet prints, as making
something that looks "official" also occurred to real thieves.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Probably probably probably.
I think the top poster needs to contact FSF Russia, or at least FSF and
ask them.
4 p.m.
Sex, 2007-05-11 às 17:01 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy escreveu:
Recently the appropriate laws in my country (Russia) have been
significantly toughened. Now the police can check for illegal software
usage by their own initiative (without request from the owner). The tax
inspection demands that software should be registered at accounts
departments.
During such a checking, the user is obliged now to show all hardcopy
license documents (with original signatures and stamps). But there are
no any such things for distros like Fedora, which have been just
downloaded from Internet, hence the user shows nothing. In this
situation the police *must* temporarily confiscate system blocks (up to
2 weeks) for further checking...
Certainly, after the checking period all hardware comes back, but such
troubles are not allowed for normal business.
Safest bet: print Fedora's "EULA", print the GNU GPL, GNU Lesser GPL,
MIT, BSD (revised or not) etc... of the software you use.
Collect them in one document and sign: I Agree, Dmitry Butskoy.
Be very careful of racketeers, here in Portugal, ANSOL has incentivated
people to use only Free Software on their computers, and send back the
"software usage registry form" from the "local" BSA filled with a
single
comment:
We use Free Software, we don't need to worry about this
Usamos Software Livre, não temos de nos preocupar com isto.
Rui
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
6:13 p.m.
Replying to Dmitry Butskoy:
The using of software in business and production environment can be a
subject for legislative regulation. It can lead to some legal troubles
of using of distributions like Fedora.
Such an interesting thread and I almost missed it!
First, what is teh License. Not a single entity who are now involved
in IP law enforcement in Russia understands this. And, despite what
Alan said about learning, I don't see how it can be improved. The
situation will be only worse.
But then, how to deal with it. Typical scenario starts when teh police
comes and asks for the licenses. The only thing we need to do here is
to show them proof of purchase or the printed licenses when someone
with rights grants you permission to use the software.
In other words, you, as Dmitry Butskoy, can comply to Fedora' EULA and
GPL by redistributing entire distribution to your organization for
free.
Print the GPL, print the russian translation (non-official/for info
purposes only), sign, show. This will be enough - in cases They
haven't "told" to shutdown your business specifically.
--
Paul P 'Stingray' Komkoff Jr // http://stingr.net/key <- my pgp key
This message represents the official view of the voices in my head
3:48 p.m.
On 2007-05-14, 18:13 GMT, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I didn't require a change to the core license. Who told you
I was? What I wanted was a official translation. That's the
minimum we need to ensure that we don't include software under
licenses don't understand or not enforceable.
If you mean by official translation, a piece of paper which would
have the same legal relevance as the English original, then it is
really bad idea. There is a reason why commercial contracts are
almost never bilingual, but only the original version is given
legal status, and all translations are for information purposes
only (except for agreeements among countries, where negotiators
rely on the hope that their terms in office will expire sooner,
then the shooting begins ;-)).
Moreover, of course, what is a binding contract in one country,
doesn't have to be the one in other (e.g., until the last summer,
all shrinkp-wrap and internet-wrap licenses were void and
unenforceable under the Czech law, and I believe it is true in
most of the countries in the Europe). And GPL et all for
information purposes only is available in many places and in many
languages.
Best,
Matej
6190
days inactive
6194
days old
91 comments
27 participants
participants (27)
-
Alan -
Alan Cox -
Andrew Haley -
Andy Shevchenko -
Benjamin De Kosnik -
Christopher Brown -
Development discussions related to Fedora -
Dmitry Butskoy -
eric -
Frederick Kautz -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeremy Katz -
Josh Boyer -
Mamoru Tasaka -
Matej Cepl -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Nicu Buculei -
nodata -
Patrice Dumas -
Paul P Komkoff Jr -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Randy Wyatt -
Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. -
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra -
Simo Sorce -
Vladimir Makarov