xXx

Hexid M1n1 5h3ll MobiLe

proc/self/root/usr/share/doc/mesa-filesystem/_[ Not.Writable ]

File://proc/self/root/usr/share/doc/mesa-filesystem/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

Your Access Expired	Date. in : 19-09-2025
Regist : 09-12-2024	Expired : 01-12-2027