From 10fd3a4ad11b087414f59a58bfed62dc87add8ea Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Callaway Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:38:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] add license clarification doc for mlaa --- Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt | 117 ++++++++++++++++++++++ mesa.spec | 14 ++- 2 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt diff --git a/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt b/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..30bdf2e --- /dev/null +++ b/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ + +Subject: RE: Question about Mesa MLAA license +From: Jorge Jimenez +Date: 01/08/2013 12:50 PM +To: Tom Callaway +CC: "jorge@iryoku.com" + +Yes to both questions. + +Thanks, +Jorge + +From: Tom Callaway +Sent: January 8, 2013 6:49 PM +To: Jorge Jimenez +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 +Date: 01/08/2013 12:39 PM +To: "jorge@iryoku.com" , Tom Callaway + +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 +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 diff --git a/mesa.spec b/mesa.spec index 608b8ac..79313ed 100644 --- a/mesa.spec +++ b/mesa.spec @@ -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/\/&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 9.0.1-4 +- clarify license on pp_mlaa* files + * Thu Dec 20 2012 Adam Jackson 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