|Summary:||unclear licensed files|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||mejiko <private>|
|Component:||mesa||Assignee:||Adam Jackson <ajax>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2013-01-15 15:40:17 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
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.