Marius Schwarz wrote: > is the license AGPL 3.0 useable in terms of distributing the software as > a package in a Fedora repo? The AGPL is acceptable for Fedora, *but*… > This project is meant: > > https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA/blob/master/LICENSE … MBROLA is *not*, because… > Example license for voices: > > https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA-voices/blob/master/data/de1/license.txt … this license is notoriously non-free: * It allows usage only with MBROLA: > Permission is granted to use this database for synthesizing > speech with and only with the Mbrola program […] AND * It forbids charging for the act of distributing, even as part of a larger software distribution such as Fedora: > In addition, this database may not be sold or incorporated into > any product which is sold without prior permission from the > Diphone Database Owner ( englert@xxxxxxxx ). > > When no charge is made, this database may be copied and distributed > freely, provided that this notice is copied and distributed with it. and especially the latter restriction disqualifies it even for the non-free content / binary firmware exception. Even (non-code) content and firmware blobs *MUST* be commercially distributable to be allowed in Fedora. This is the reason why MBROLA is not in Fedora. MBROLA is not new. It is much older than the 2-year-old GitHub project. The license of the voices has always been the blocker. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
