is the license AGPL 3.0 useable in terms of distributing the software as a package?

[Marius Schwarz]

hi,

is the license AGPL 3.0 useable in terms of distributing the software as 
a package in a Fedora repo?

This project is meant:

https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA/blob/master/LICENSE

Example license for voices:

https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA-voices/blob/master/data/de1/license.txt

best regards,
Marius Schwarz

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 5:42 PM Marius Schwarz  wrote:
> hi,
>
> is the license AGPL 3.0 useable in terms of distributing the software as
> a package in a Fedora repo?
>
> This project is meant:
>
> https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Example license for voices:
>
> https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA-voices/blob/master/data/de1/license.txt

Yes: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses

[Kevin Kofler]

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 ( [e-mail] ).
>
> 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

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:18 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
 wrote:
> 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 ( [e-mail] ).
> >
> > 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.

Ugh, I missed that part. Whoops. Yeah, Kevin is right and this project
is still not permitted in Fedora.

[Kevin Kofler]

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> 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.

PS: This was already discussed when the GitHub project was created in 2019:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...
with the same conclusion. (It is not acceptable for Fedora, unfortunately.)

And, a small correction: according to the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBROLA
the license of the software itself did actually change from a non-free 
license to the AGPL when the project was imported into GitHub. But 
unfortunately, the license of the data files is still a blocker, sorry.

Kevin Kofler

[Marius Schwarz]

Am 24.03.21 um 02:44 schrieb Kevin Kofler via devel:
> Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > 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.
>
> PS: This was already discussed when the GitHub project was created in 2019:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...
> with the same conclusion. (It is not acceptable for Fedora, unfortunately.)
>
> And, a small correction: according to the Wikipedia article:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBROLA
> the license of the software itself did actually change from a non-free
> license to the AGPL when the project was imported into GitHub. But
> unfortunately, the license of the data files is still a blocker, sorry.

A very helpfull explanation. Thanks.

Best regards,
Marius Schwarz