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_Lic...
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(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Richard Fontana" <rfontana(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: legal(a)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_Licens...
> [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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list -- legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>