Re: License of a file in espeak-ng

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I am just curious. It might be problem that this file is only a small part of the project. Is such license compatible with GPLv3? This code is linked with GPL code in one binary. Is it ok?

--
Petr Menšík

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ondřej Lysoněk" <olysonek@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 2:36:59 PM
Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: License of a file in espeak-ng

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].

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
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux