On 8/24/20 4:10 AM, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote: >> Confirming EUPL 1.2 is "good". > > Just a short followup question about the EUPL 1.2 license: > > Is it enough, if the upstream author(s) just include their native > language version of the EUPL 1.2 license text, or do we explicitly need > the english version of the license text available for Fedora packaging? > > The European Community lists about two dozend different language > versions of the license, which are all considered official [1]. > > Thanks > Björn > > > [1] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/eupl-text-eupl-12 >
I'm not a lawyer or Red Hat employee, but given Fedora is an American legal entity (tied to Red Hat as a U.S. corporation), I presume English is the preferred language for licenses. Since the other languages of the license are recognized as official, I think it is sufficient to standardize on one language and to use other translations as a legal reference if it ever mattered for international jurisdiction (?). My two cents! -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) https://jwf.io TZ=America/New_York
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
