X7ROOT File Manager
Current Path:
/usr/share/doc/mesa-filesystem-18.3.4
usr
/
share
/
doc
/
mesa-filesystem-18.3.4
/
📁
..
📄
Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
(3.6 KB)
Editing: Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
Subject: RE: Question about Mesa MLAA license From: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku@gmail.com> Date: 01/08/2013 12:50 PM To: Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> CC: "jorge@iryoku.com" <jorge@iryoku.com> Yes to both questions. Thanks, Jorge From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> Sent: January 8, 2013 6:49 PM To: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku@gmail.com> 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 <iryoku@gmail.com> Date: 01/08/2013 12:39 PM To: "jorge@iryoku.com" <jorge@iryoku.com>, Tom Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> 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 <tcallawa@redhat.com> 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
Upload File
Create Folder