Bug 892924

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>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	17	CC:	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:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
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.