Legality of Fedora in production environment

[Nicolas Mailhot]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070514/8318e5e4/attachment-0002.bin