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? Thanks.
[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/
Ondřej Lysoněk
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/
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_S... [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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:36:59PM +0100, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote:
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].
It might be appropriate to use the existing tag 'Copyright only' (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly?rd=Licensing/Copyrigh...) rather than creating a new one. Maybe spot can comment.
Richard
Thanks!
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_S... [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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/21/2016 08:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:36:59PM +0100, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote:
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].
It might be appropriate to use the existing tag 'Copyright only' (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly?rd=Licensing/Copyrigh...) rather than creating a new one. Maybe spot can comment.
I agree.
~tom
== Red Hat
Ok, thanks guys!
Ondřej Lysoněk
On 12/21/2016 04:29 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 12/21/2016 08:51 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:36:59PM +0100, Ondřej Lysoněk wrote:
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].
It might be appropriate to use the existing tag 'Copyright only' (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:CopyrightOnly?rd=Licensing/Copyrigh...) rather than creating a new one. Maybe spot can comment.
I agree.
~tom
== Red Hat _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@redhat.com To: "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com Cc: legal@lists.fedoraproject.org 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_S... [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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
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_Licens...
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@redhat.com To: "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com Cc: legal@lists.fedoraproject.org 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_S... [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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 01:21:49PM -0500, 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?
If we are correctly identifying and interpreting the license, it must be GPL-compatible.
Richard
-- Petr Menšík
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ondřej Lysoněk" olysonek@redhat.com To: "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com Cc: legal@lists.fedoraproject.org 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_S... [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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
legal mailing list -- legal@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ondřej Lysoněk -
Petr Mensik -
Richard Fontana -
Tom Callaway