License of voice files

[TomasKorbar]

Hi,
Some time ago i tried to package Mbrola into Fedora because of this bug [0]
Unfortunately i ran into an issue. Mbrola can not be packaged into fedora unless Voice files are packaged too. This is not possible because of license of voice files. I discussed this license on fedora-legal mailing list and the conclusion was that this line
this database may not be sold or incorporated into any product which is sold without prior permission from the particular author of the voice database file
makes voice files non-free and so not allowed to be packaged.
Is there a possibility that you could change the license?
[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1625887

[TomasKorbar]

Any update on this please?

[valdisvi]

Thierry Dutoit sent an e-mail some time ago to all contact persons in provider list (with copy to me) and asked them to open voices with more permissible licence similarly to MBROLA code itself. Unfortunately neither of them responded (as far as I could see). One of reasons may be that many of e-mails may actually be outdated.
Workaround for this would be similar to other distributions of closed/limited software/data (e.g. closed source drivers for WiFi and display cards, Microsoft fonts, Skype, etc.). Actual package should have installer, which asks to confirm EULA (in case of MBROLA voices agreement to use for non-commercial, non-military use) and then downloading it directly from this GitHub project.

[TomasKorbar]

I do not think that is possible because we already discussed it in [0]
and came to conclusion that software which needs such process is not acceptable in Fedora.
[0] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MAAY3B6KUVAV7YRNUSW7G6672WUAFWYJ/

[valdisvi]

@TomasKorbar, @thierrydutoit, probably there is legal way to package theses files more easily (i.e. without searching authors and re-licensing them), because all their license files have clause (in following or little bit different wording):

The distribution of this  database is submitted  to the same terms and
conditions  as the  distribution of the  Mbrola  program.

Some still have some other limitations, e.g.

In addition,
this database  may not be sold  or incorporated into any product which
is sold without  prior permission   from  the Diphone Database   Owner
(mbrola@tcts.fpms.ac.be ).

What do you think?

[thierrydutoit]

Valdis I dont understand your point. The license is identical to the old distribution of MBROLA. This doe not imply the voices are now open source...

[valdisvi]

My point is, that if now MBROLA is open source, then you can apply these rules to voice data files also (considering their additional limitations, of course). This may not be very strong point in court, but may be practical solution in cases, when you assume that original authors mostly will not object (at least for packaging and distribution, leaving responsibility on improper usage to the end users).

[thierrydutoit]

Oh no, my point is precisely : the voice license mentions the previous MBROLA license… I did not get the right from voice owners to change their license. But I admit this is now fuzzy. Thierry

[Zireael07]

What is the license situation now?

[thierrydutoit]

I has not changed : The voices have been prooduced by their respective owners and you should get permissions from them for any commercial use of the voices (commercial in the wide sense : even if for free, used for publicity or maketing).

[Zireael07]

MBROLA itself can be used for free for noncommercial purposes. It would be nice if the license clearly specified that the voices are also free for non-commercial purposes (as I understand it, they are?)

[thierrydutoit]

Sorry or the late answer. Yes, every MBROLA voice comes with a license file which mentions that it can be used for non commercial purposes.