Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 892924 - unclear licensed files
Summary: unclear licensed files
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: mesa
Version: 17
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adam Jackson
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-08 09:10 UTC by mejiko
Modified: 2013-01-15 15:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-01-15 15:40:17 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description mejiko 2013-01-08 09:10:38 UTC 
Hello.

mesa included unclear licensed files.


Source RPM is : mesa-8.0.4-1.fc17.src.rpm

Files:

Mesa-8.0.4/src/gallium/auxiliary/postprocess/pp_mlaa*

This source code license is BSD like license, but this license section 2 is unclear and questionable.

Its non-free.

Note: I am not a lawer


Source URI:

https://daemonfc.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/mesa3d-and-the-art-of-slipping-proprietary-software-through-the-back-door/

http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?56844-MLAA-For-Mesa-Is-Ready-For-Testing/page6

Question: Is this license is compatible GPL and acceptable fedora ? 


Seggests:

1. Remove unclear files and rebuild.
2. Replace Fedora-free files.
3. Remove Fedora repos.

Thanks.


Reference:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing
Comment 1 mejiko 2013-01-08 09:11:35 UTC 
Blocking FE-Legal, This is license problem (unclear).
Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-01-15 15:40:17 UTC 
I emailed the copyright holder for that code and clarified his intent for the license. Basically, what he was trying to say is that the additional clause in part 2 of the license is an optional way to meet the BSD requirement, but you can ignore it and treat that code as pure BSD. It is not intended as a use restriction. Red Hat Legal agrees, and asked me to include a copy of the clarifying email correspondence in the mesa package, which I have done as of mesa-9.0.1-4.fc19. Fedora will treat that code as BSD.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.