sak (Speaker Assistive Kit) is here !

[BigChimp]

I do not understand why the licence would differ if you use espeak.exe with parameters instead of espeak.dll via espeak.pas.

Can't help you there. You could head over to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
and read up on GPL licensing.

Yes, this license stuff is fairly confusing at first, but after you've read up on it, things fall into place (well, they did for me at least).

Also it seems to my that it is more fair to use espeak.dll with portaudio.dll than only espeak.exe (with portaudio in ressource).

I have no idea whether that's "fairer" or not. I was just talking about the license and the way the guys at fsf interpret it.

To do it clear, i have sent a mail to author asking if there is a difference in licence of using espeak.exe vs espeak.dll.

Strange. GPL is GPL. If espeak.dll is distributed under another license, the license statement should say so.

Perhaps you could better ask him to relicense espeak under a LGPL license with linking exception to make it perfectly clear you're allowed to link against espeak.dll without getting GPL.
Of course the author may not agree as he may think GPL is more suitable...

[Fred vS]

Strange. GPL is GPL. If espeak.dll is distributed under another license, the license statement should say so.

Espeak.dll is not distributed under another license, the c code (for executable and dll) is distributed with the same license (it is why im surprised about the remark of Avra).

Perhaps you could better ask him to relicense espeak under a LGPL license with linking exception to make it perfectly clear you're allowed to link against espeak.dll without getting GPL.

OK, i will ask it. (but not sure the author gonna be happy to change his license).

@ BigChimp : many thanks for answers.

[avra]

Then any application using your DLL gets viral GPL license from eSpeak DLL, so unfortunately SAK is not for me.

I do not understand. I had contact with the autor.

That's right. You just had a contact, and these contact mails do not mean that license has changed. Even if author wanted to change the license it would be only possible if he gets permission from all contributors (since they have agreed to GPL and not to something not existing at the moment they were contributing). So, eSpeak license is still GPL, which means (the way I read it) that it is safe to use executable in commercial applications (since there is no linking) and it is not safe to use DLL (there is dynamic linking, therefore all applications using it become GPL otherwise there is a license violation). Don't worry, I was also confused before this discussion: http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,13401.msg70299.html#msg70299. If you don't know why I said that GPL has viral license, then take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_license.

[Fred vS]

@ Avra : many thanks for explanations.

But, like i explained before, there is something that i do not understand about static portaudio library who is inside the resource of espeak executable.

PortAudio is also a open source project.

So what about the espeak license vs portaudio ?

Do you think that if i use espeak.exe in place of espeak.dll for sak, there will be less problems of license ?

Thanks.

[EDIT] Here question to espeak-forum (till now, no answer...)
https://sourceforge.net/p/espeak/discussion/538920/thread/91a60140/

[avra]

PortAudio is also a open source project. So what about the espeak license vs portaudio?

Reading http://www.portaudio.com/license.html tells me that PortAudio license is not viral, and is compatible to many other licenses - including GPL. This means that your whole project does not have a license conflict if you license it as GPL (since eSpeak's GPL license is viral) which is probably not what you want. In the time when free software was a lot behind commercial counterparts, GPL was used by authors to protect their new inovative ideas from being directly used in commercial applications.

Do you think that if i use espeak.exe in place of espeak.dll for sak, there will be less problems of license ?

Well, that was my conclusion after discussion from the link I gave you. If you just call author's executable then you can give your code any license you want, since PortAudio license is not viral. You should mention in a proper place that you use eSpeak and PortAudio and provide a link to them and that's it. If you customize eSpeak executable then you also must publish it's sources with all changes (GPL enforces it).

Legal mumbo jumbo: These are not legal advices and I am not an expert on this topic, so if you have a need to be sure of something said here then consult your lawyer. If you don't do that then all risk for believing what I said is entirely yours.

[Fred vS]

@ Avra : many, many thanks for clear answer.

I gonna divide sak in 2 parts :
- DLL part : with access via espeak.dll for GPL projects.
- EXE part : with access via espeak.exe for other projects.

I will wait for the answer of espeak author about re-license before to continue to develop FPC, the first assistived compiler.

PS : You (and others) are welcome to respond something like
"Im also interested in re-license LGPL" in the espeak forum. 
https://sourceforge.net/p/espeak/discussion/538920/thread/91a60140/

So the author gonna see im not the only one who is afraid about old GPL license.

Many thanks.

[Fred vS]

@ Avra (bis).

So, if i understand well, the NVDA project : http://www.nvaccess.org/

is in the same case than sak because it uses espeak_sapi.dll.

And all the projects (not GPL) who use NVDA are then illegal... 

[BigChimp]

Yes, they would be illegal [1]... or put it differently: because the GPL is viral, it would immediately make all those projects GPL-licensed, regardless of their license.
The question is whether that license change clashes with existing licenses the authors have set - and more fundamentally, I suppose: if the authors hadn't given their project a GPL license, having one forced on them without the authors' consent would be sort of "illegal", too..

All this of course as long as you believe the FSF's idea that dynamic linking is some form of creating a derivative work (derivative work being a criterium for "transmitting" the GPL "virus").

[1] Edit: note: of course, as explained before: only if they link against espeak/NVDA code/dlls. If they just execute the NVDA executable, the GPL virus doesn't "transmit".

[Fred vS]

Yes, they would be illegal

Pfff, that sak assistive project gives me lot of enemies.

I mention that problem of license in NVDA forum.
Now it is the war there... 

[Fred vS]

@ Avra : i just get that message from espeak author :

Jonathan Duddington
À : Fred van Stappen
de: Jonathan Duddington

On 17 Jul, Fred van Stappen <fiens@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
> Does it exist any difference between eSpeak license using espeak.exe
> or espeak.dll.
 
All eSpeak is licenced with the GPL v3.
 
If your software calls the espeak.exe program, then it is not
considered a "derived work" of eSpeak.
 
Similarly, if your software produces speech by using the standard
Windows SAPI5 inferface, then it does not become a "derived work" if a
user selects an eSpeak voice from his SAPI5 voice menu.
 

[BigChimp]

Yes, they would be illegal

Pfff, that sak assistive project gives me lot of enemies.

I mention that problem of license in NVDA forum.
Now it is the war there... 

Well, TBH, it helps if you know what you're talking about, and the way you write such a message. Just saying things are illegal is likely to get a spirited response, yes
(Note: haven't looked at that forum, just a general remark)

Edit: I have now looked at your post on the nvda mailing lists and see that you plain out say using espeak GPL dlls is illegal.

If that's your considered opinion, no problem.
However, it's definitively not what Avra and I have been posting.  I'm trying hard to indicate that the dll linking=GPL issue is controversial (and so is Avra, I think)... and even that in my opinion it's untrue.
Anyway, I really don't know how I can be clearer about these nuances...

@ Avra : i just get that message from espeak author :
<snip>

Well, good to know the espeak author thinks the same as I do: loading a GPL dll does not make a program GPL. Of course the FSF differs on that opinion (and I think Avra is wise to avoid GPL software as much as possible to avoid all uncertainty; when I can, I do the same).

The good thing here is that you have direct confirmation by the author of his interpretation of the license... making it much harder for people to claim that any project that uses espeak dlls should be GPL.

[Fred vS]

@ BigChimp : many thanks for answer.

Edit: I have now looked at your post on the nvda mailing lists and see that you plain out say using dlls is illegal.

Hum, if you have read the posts, the war begin because somebody (not me) said that nvda is illegal because one app-member is not GPL (and gives the name of that app).

The good thing here is that you have direct confirmation by the autho

Yep but sad that he does not respond about the re-license into LGPL. 

[BigChimp]

@ BigChimp : many thanks for answer.

Edit: I have now looked at your post on the nvda mailing lists and see that you plain out say using dlls is illegal.

Hum, if you have read the posts, the war begin because somebody (not me) said that nvda is illegal because one app-member is not GPL (and gives the name of that app).

Ok.

Doesn't really change my remarks above though: AFAIU you still said using anything that links to GPL dlls is illegal... which is fine if that is your considered opinion, but I'd feel bad if you came to that opinion while misreading our posts.

The good thing here is that you have direct confirmation by the autho

Yep but sad that he does not respond about the re-license into LGPL. 

I think he explained well why that wouldn't be necessary - I'll leave it at that

Hope this clears up the licensing stuff though...

[Fred vS]

Hope this clears up the licensing stuff though...

Yep, now im the king in licensing stuff 

I think he explained well why that wouldn't be necessary - I'll leave it at that

Aaarg, im too bad, i have already sent him that mail  :

Hello Jonathan.

Well, good to know you think that loading a GPL dll does not make a program GPL.

Sadly FSF differs on that opinion.
So, it would be great if, one day, espeak becomes LGPL.

Many thanks for answer and have nice holidays.

Fred

[taazz]

Actually from his reply he says that if you use MS SAPI and the user chooses espeak as its engine in the sapi you are not obliged to follow GPL on the other hand if you do use the espeak.dll directly then your application must be gpled as well.

Well thats my interpretation of his commends at least.