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
