[Home]

Summary:ASTERISK-09829: No license statemement in the sound tarballs
Reporter:unknownLabels:
Date Opened:2007-07-07 06:30:05Date Closed:2009-01-30 14:46:16.000-0600
Priority:MinorRegression?No
Status:Closed/CompleteComponents:Sounds
Versions:Frequency of
Occurrence
Related
Issues:
Environment:Attachments:
Description:I just packaged the en/es/fr sounds in an rpm (http://www.provocation.net/rpms/ ) and put "GPL" as the license in lack of better. Obviously, the GPL works for code, not for sound recordings. No matter how I search the websites though, I can't find any reference to a license for the sounds. Strictly speaking, when no explicit license to redistribute is given, copyright applies and redistribution is forbidden. This is not a good situation, so perhaps you could add a CC license or similar to the CREDITS-asterisk-core-<lang>-<version> files.
Comments:By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2007-07-09 10:33:22

You are correct; GPL is not an appropriate license for content files of this type.

I have been working with our licensing team for months trying to get this resolved, but as yet don't have an appropriate license to put into these sound file packages. I have asked them once again to put something together for me and I will update this issue once it has been taken care of. I can't promise any time frame though... it's been months already since I began the process.
By: () 2007-07-09 10:59:15

If your intention is to apply conditions similar to the GPL, the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license gets very close and should be ideal. It allows non-commercial and commercial use, redistribution and modification, requires attribution to the original licensor and re-licensing of derivatives under the same license and it even contains a "no warranty" provision.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
By: Daniel Nylander (yeager) 2007-07-16 11:08:07

Didn't Debian see Creative Commons (some version/variant) as non-free?

For my sound files (Swedish) I could relicense them as BSD license.
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2007-12-10 11:02:52.000-0600

*poke*
By: jmls (jmls) 2008-02-06 04:12:18.000-0600

bigger *poke*
By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2008-02-06 09:28:21.000-0600

Kevin is aware of this issue and is working to get the license statement, there is nothing he can do to make things go faster sadly. Please do not close this issue.
By: jmls (jmls) 2008-05-03 14:23:05

is this still being worked on ? Thanks.
By: Joshua C. Colp (jcolp) 2008-05-05 08:55:11

jmls: This is still in progress. Please disregard it when checking Mantis issue statuses.
By: jmls (jmls) 2008-05-05 14:02:13

yikes. ok. /me considers himself slapped ;)
By: W. Michael Petullo (flyn) 2008-07-03 10:10:31

For reference, the content licenses acceptable to the Fedora project are listed at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Content_Licenses. Obviously, this does not cover all licenses. but lists several that have been cleared.
By: Tzafrir Cohen (tzafrir) 2008-09-22 15:08:05

And the respective list of Debian:
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
(Just to clarify that CC-SA 3.0 *is* DFSG-compliant)
By: John Todd (jtodd) 2008-11-03 12:49:59.000-0600

Fedora and Debian are handled by Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 license.  Allison seems to be on board; Digium legal folks creating final contract (even though I suppose the contract won't be with Digium.)  June (French prompts) is pending discussion with Clod, who is currently working with her on other prompt projects.  Hopefully the CC-by-sa license will make sense to her and we can get this moved out of the way after signing.
By: Jeffrey C. Ollie (jcollie) 2008-11-03 12:54:24.000-0600

As long as the Non-Commercial clauses are not added to the license Fedora should be fine.
By: John Todd (jtodd) 2008-11-03 13:21:17.000-0600

Right - we're shooting for the plain CC-by-sa 3.0 license, no additional clauses or restrictions.
By: John Todd (jtodd) 2008-11-03 14:32:32.000-0600

Clod says June has agreed in principle to the CC-by-sa license.  Now awaiting Digium internal process to get that to her for updating the existing agreement documentation. (Jim, Michelle)
By: Jeffrey C. Ollie (jcollie) 2009-01-04 19:55:26.000-0600

Any updates?  It's been 2 months since the last note was posted...
By: Kevin P. Fleming (kpfleming) 2009-01-09 17:42:39.000-0600

Believe it or not, this has finally been resolved!

I have just uploaded version 1.4.14 of the asterisk-core-sounds tarballs to downloads.digium.com (English, Spanish and French), which contain a CC-BY-SA license agreed to by the content creators (copyright owners).

All future releases of Asterisk 1.4 and Asterisk 1.6.x will include a properly licensed core-sounds-en-gsm tarball. In addition, the Asterisk 1.2 branch has this new license file present in its 'sounds' directory, so any future releases of Asterisk 1.2 will also have the license present.

In addition, the copyright owners of the prompts have agreed to allow this license to be used with all previously-distributed (distributed by Digium, not by other entities) versions of these prompts, at the user's discretion. That means that for all prior releases of Asterisk, the user can either treat the sound files as being licensed under the GPL Version 2 (the previously assumed license) or the new CC-BY-SA license. If the user is going to redistribute the sound files from an older release, they are encouraged to explicitly state which license they have chosen, and include the CC-BY-SA license if that is their choice.

Enjoy :-)
By: Jeffrey C. Ollie (jcollie) 2009-01-30 14:46:16.000-0600

FYI, I have begun the process to package the core sounds for Fedora:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483331