-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
/
Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
117 lines (86 loc) · 3.6 KB
/
Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
Subject: RE: Question about Mesa MLAA license
From: Jorge Jimenez <[email protected]>
Date: 01/08/2013 12:50 PM
To: Tom Callaway <[email protected]>
CC: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Yes to both questions.
Thanks,
Jorge
From: Tom Callaway <[email protected]>
Sent: January 8, 2013 6:49 PM
To: Jorge Jimenez <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
Date: 01/08/2013 12:39 PM
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 <[email protected]>
Sent: January 8, 2013 6:30 PM
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