Bug 892924

Summary: unclear licensed files
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: mejiko <private>
Component: mesaAssignee: Adam Jackson <ajax>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 17CC: ajax, tcallawa
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-01-15 15:40:17 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 182235    

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.