On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:36:59PM +0100, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote: > Great! So what shall I put to the License field in the spec file? It > says here [1] that the license should get a short name and be added to [2]. It might be appropriate to use the existing tag 'Copyright only' (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly?rd=Licensing/CopyrightOnly) rather than creating a new one. Maybe spot can comment. Richard > > Thanks! > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses > > Ondřej Lysoněk > > On 12/21/2016 02:37 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:31:02PM +0100, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm packaging espeak-ng [1] and it includes a file which has a somewhat > >> problematic license [2]. The license header in the file itself doesn't > >> explicitly permit modification, however the file is reachable from a page > >> saying that all the code listed there can be modified, if you send the > >> improvements back to the author [3]. Can we use code like this in Fedora? > > > > I'd take the license at face value (including the appearance of having > > been granted by Apple around 1991, where Turkowski evidently was > > employed at that time) and I'd then apply the principle we've used for > > similar informal licenses dating from around that time, that grants of > > mere permission to "use" should be understood to cover (among other > > things) modification, since there's a lot of general evidence that > > this is what licensors from that time period meant. So that seems > > okay. > > > > I would also ignore the arguably contradictory statement on > > Turkowski's website, though I note the use of "should". > > > > The only thing that gives me a little pause is that it seems like all > > the code he has on his website has essentially the same license as the > > putative Apple license seen here, except that he changes 'Apple' to > > 'I'. That could simply mean that he took the old Apple license and for > > sentimental or other reasons used it with nonsubstantive alteration > > for code he wrote later on. It certainly looks plausible that it > > really was a bona fide Apple license, and the Apple license came > > first. > > > > So, seems okay to me. > > > > Richard > > > > > >> [1] https://github.com/espeak-ng/espeak-ng/ > >> [2] > >> https://github.com/espeak-ng/espeak-ng/blob/master/src/libespeak-ng/ieee80.c > >> taken from http://www.realitypixels.com/turk/opensource/ToFromIEEE.c.txt > >> [3] http://www.realitypixels.com/turk/opensource/ > > _______________________________________________ > > legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
