rpms/mesa
7
0
Fork 1
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Activity

add license clarification doc for mlaa

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Tom Callaway 2013-01-15 10:38:20 -05:00
parent 4d2c16e77f
commit 10fd3a4ad1
2 changed files with 129 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

117
Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
Subject: RE: Question about Mesa MLAA license
From: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku@gmail.com>
Date: 01/08/2013 12:50 PM
To: Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>
CC: "jorge@iryoku.com" <jorge@iryoku.com>
Yes to both questions.
Thanks,
Jorge
From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>
Sent: January 8, 2013 6:49 PM
To: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku@gmail.com>
CC: jorge@iryoku.com
Subject: Re: Question about Mesa MLAA license
On 01/08/2013 12:39 PM, Jorge Jimenez wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> What we meant with that is that we made an exception for clause 2.
> Instead of clause 2, in the case of the Mesa project, you have to name
> the technique Jimenez's MLAA in the config options of Mesa. We did that
> just to allow them to solve license issues. This exception should be for
> the Mesa project, and any project using Mesa, like Fedora.
>
> We want to widespread usage of our MLAA, so we want to avoid any kind of
> license complications. Hope current one is good for Fedora, if not
> please tell, and we'll see what we can do!
Okay, a few more questions:
* If Fedora decides to simply reproduce the quoted statement:
"Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."
Specifically, if this is done as part of documentation included with
Mesa, is that sufficient to meet clause 2 even if the Mesa config option
is not set as described in your exception?
* Currently, the Mesa config option for MLAA says: "Morphological
anti-aliasing based on Jimenez\' MLAA. 0 to disable, 8 for default
quality". Is this in compliance with your exception?
Thanks again,
~tom
==
Fedora Project
Subject: RE: Question about Mesa MLAA license
From: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku@gmail.com>
Date: 01/08/2013 12:39 PM
To: "jorge@iryoku.com" <jorge@iryoku.com>, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>
Hi Tom,
What we meant with that is that we made an exception for clause 2.
Instead of clause 2, in the case of the Mesa project, you have to name
the technique Jimenez's MLAA in the config options of Mesa. We did that
just to allow them to solve license issues. This exception should be for
the Mesa project, and any project using Mesa, like Fedora.
We want to widespread usage of our MLAA, so we want to avoid any kind of
license complications. Hope current one is good for Fedora, if not
please tell, and we'll see what we can do!
Cheers,
Jorge
From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>
Sent: January 8, 2013 6:30 PM
To: jorge@iryoku.com
Subject: Question about Mesa MLAA license
Jorge,
Thanks for all of your fantastic graphics work! I have been auditing
Fedora (a popular distribution of Linux) for license compliance and I
came across your MLAA code in Mesa.
The license says:
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the following
statement:
*
* "Uses Jimenez's MLAA. Copyright (C) 2010 by Jorge Jimenez, Belen Masia,
* Jose I. Echevarria, Fernando Navarro and Diego Gutierrez."
*
* Only for use in the Mesa project, this point 2 is filled by naming the
* technique Jimenez's MLAA in the Mesa config options.
That wording is unclear. When you say "Only for use in the Mesa
project...", it seems like you could either be saying:
- This code may only be used as part of Mesa.
OR
- In Mesa, you can comply with clause 2 by simply selecting "Jimenez's
MLAA" in the Mesa config options.
*****
If the first item is true, then we may have to remove the MLAA code from
Fedora's copy of Mesa. However, looking at the license on your SMAA
code, I do not believe it to be the case. Please let me know either way!
Thanks in advance,
Tom Callaway
Fedora Legal
==
Fedora Project

14
mesa.spec
View File

@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
Summary: Mesa graphics libraries
Name: mesa
Version: 9.0.1
Release: 3%{?dist}
Release: 4%{?dist}
License: MIT
Group: System Environment/Libraries
URL: http://www.mesa3d.org
@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ Source0: ftp://ftp.freedesktop.org/pub/%{name}/%{version}/MesaLib-%{version}.tar
#Source0: %{name}-%{gitdate}.tar.xz
Source3: make-git-snapshot.sh
# src/gallium/auxiliary/postprocess/pp_mlaa* have an ... interestingly worded license.
# Source4 contains email correspondence clarifying the license terms.
# Fedora opts to ignore the optional part of clause 2 and treat that code as 2 clause BSD.
Source4: Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
# $ git diff-tree -p mesa-9.0.1..origin/9.0 > `git describe origin/9.0`.patch
Patch0: mesa-9.0.1-22-gd0a9ab2.patch
@ -309,6 +314,8 @@ sed -i 's/\<libdrm_nouveau\>/&2/' configure.ac
%endif
%endif
cp %{SOURCE4} docs/
%build
autoreconf --install
@ -434,7 +441,7 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%files dri-filesystem
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%doc docs/COPYING
%doc docs/COPYING docs/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
%dir %{_libdir}/dri
%files libglapi
@ -574,6 +581,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%endif
%changelog
* Tue Jan 15 2013 Tom Callaway <spot@fedoraproject.org> 9.0.1-4
- clarify license on pp_mlaa* files
* Thu Dec 20 2012 Adam Jackson <ajax@redhat.com> 9.0.1-3
- mesa-9.0.1-22-gd0a9ab2.patch: Sync with git
- Build with -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions, modest size and speed win