Re: Updating mbrola (again)

[adr <adr%sdf.org@localhost>]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I see no-commercial-use as historical, something we did long ago.  It is
> now pretty firmly established that we don't do that.  The guide says:
>
>  The use of LICENSE=shareware, LICENSE=no-commercial-use, and similar language
>  is deprecated because it does not crisply refer to a particular license text.
>  Another problem with such usage is that it does not enable a user to tell
>  pkgsrc to proceed for a single package without also telling pkgsrc to proceed
>  for all packages with that tag.

Yep, I saw that, that's why I'm asking for advise, to make things right.

> I don't follow "depends on the individual license".  Each package is
> supposed to have a license string.
>
> Are you saying that there is one license for mbrola itself, and that
> each voice has a different license?    Are there many different ones, or
> do a handful cover most voices?

Mbrola is now open source, AGPL. The voices have individual licenses in
their data dirs. Take a look at this:

https://github.com/numediart/MBROLA-voices/issues/6

Things are more homogeneous, so the text from above could be included
as a new license, but the individual licence.txt and README.txt
files from each voice should be included in each package has they
are at present.

Espeak-ng, which I use with emacspeak (and plan to use with yars),
can use them to render more "human" voices. The voices included
with espeak-ng are similar to the flite's ones, let's say that they
are more "methalic". That doesn't mean that they are better.  What
you want in a screen reader is not a pretty voice, but one that is
responsible and recognizable. Also the use of those voices is not
limited to screen readers. Nevertheless, the license issue makes
me want to ditch them.

The current situation is worst: the same licenses for the voices
and an old mbrola binary for x86.

adr