I think that's not a problem. The package just will have to be multiple-licensed [1]. So the License field would be something like "License: GPLv3 and Copyright only". [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Ondřej Lysoněk On 12/21/2016 07:21 PM, Petr Mensik wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
