Bug 532554

Oddly, the asterisk documentation indicates this is non-free (http://www.asterisk.org/astdocs/node4.html) yet that's contradicted by but LICENSE-asterisk-moh-opsound-alaw file.

However, just to be doubly sure I checked the upstream sites and at least this bit:

manolo_camp-morning_coffee - Manolo Camp
beatbastard - http://ccmixter.org/people/ManoloCamp

is cc-by-nc and this:

neno_project-system - Reno Project
renoproject - http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/23661

seems to be cc-by-nc-nd.

If there is explicit cc-by-sa permission given, is there any evidence of that anywhere?

(In reply to comment #1)
> Oddly, the asterisk documentation indicates this is non-free
> (http://www.asterisk.org/astdocs/node4.html) yet that's contradicted by but
> LICENSE-asterisk-moh-opsound-alaw file.

Yes, there were older music on hold files that didn't have a free license.  

> However, just to be doubly sure I checked the upstream sites and at least this
> bit:
> 
> manolo_camp-morning_coffee - Manolo Camp
> beatbastard - http://ccmixter.org/people/ManoloCamp
> 
> is cc-by-nc and this:
> 
> neno_project-system - Reno Project
> renoproject - http://www.jamendo.com/en/album/23661
> 
> seems to be cc-by-nc-nd.
> 
> If there is explicit cc-by-sa permission given, is there any evidence of that
> anywhere?

http://blogs.digium.com/2009/08/18/asterisk-music-on-hold-changes/
http://www.opsound.org/info/license/

Well, sure, I'm familiar with the license of the works from opsound.  The problem is that there seems to be no indication that the stuff came from opsound.

g.  I guess if you can find it somewhere with an acceptable license then we can use it as that license, but if you follow the URLs (which is the only real indication of where the the files come from) you get licensing information that conflicts.

Not to mention that opsound works are cc-by-sa 2.5, not 3.0 as stated in the LICENSE file.

So, massively confusing all around; the asterisk guys really seem have trouble with the whole license thing.  I honestly don't know what to do; my feeling is that we know we have at least one source that gives us a useful license, and the 2.5/3.0 thing is pretty minor, but I'd still like to see if spot has anything to add.  This has been sitting around for over a year so it shouldn't really hurt to wait a bit more so that we're sure we're OK.

The lack of indication that these files came from opsound is ... troubling. Adding Jared to the CC here, as he may be able to work with Digium to get this licensing confusion cleared up.

Is there any update on clarifying the actual licenses for these files?

(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #5)
> Is there any update on clarifying the actual licenses for these files?

Does this Asterisk wiki page (dated 2014) count as clarification / evidence of the Opsound sourcing / licensing?

https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Voice+Prompts+and+Music+on+Hold+License

Alright. That should be sufficient for this to move forward, barring any contradictory evidence. Lifting FE-Legal.

jgrulich's scratch build of kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 for f22-candidate and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/kdevelop?#c8e2b9bc57f11e41f3dc6612cdbcc591078d9062 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11212117

Jeffrey with the unblocking of legal are you intending to progress this?

As per policy if there is no response within a week this bug will be closed so others of interest may take it up.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews

I'm no longer interested in packaging this...