[mesa] add license clarification doc for mlaa

[Tom Callaway]

commit 10fd3a4ad11b087414f59a58bfed62dc87add8ea
Author: Tom Callaway <spot at fedoraproject.org>
Date:   Tue Jan 15 10:38:20 2013 -0500

    add license clarification doc for mlaa

 Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt |  117 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 mesa.spec                                 |   14 +++-
 2 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt b/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..30bdf2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+
+Subject: RE: Question about Mesa MLAA license
+From: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku at gmail.com>
+Date: 01/08/2013 12:50 PM
+To: Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>
+CC: "jorge at iryoku.com" <jorge at iryoku.com>
+
+Yes to both questions.
+ 
+Thanks,
+Jorge
+ 
+From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com>
+Sent: January 8, 2013 6:49 PM
+To: Jorge Jimenez <iryoku at gmail.com>
+CC: jorge at 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 at gmail.com>
+Date: 01/08/2013 12:39 PM
+To: "jorge at iryoku.com" <jorge at iryoku.com>, Tom Callaway <tcallawa at 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 at redhat.com>
+Sent: January 8, 2013 6:30 PM
+To: jorge at 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
diff --git a/mesa.spec b/mesa.spec
index 608b8ac..79313ed 100644
--- a/mesa.spec
+++ b/mesa.spec
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
 Summary: Mesa graphics libraries
 Name: mesa
 Version: 9.0.1
-Release: 3%{?dist}
+Release: 4%{?dist}
 License: MIT
 Group: System Environment/Libraries
 URL: http://www.mesa3d.org
@@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ Source0: ftp://ftp.freedesktop.org/pub/%{name}/%{version}/MesaLib-%{version}.tar
 #Source0: %{name}-%{gitdate}.tar.xz
 Source3: make-git-snapshot.sh
 
+# src/gallium/auxiliary/postprocess/pp_mlaa* have an ... interestingly worded license.
+# Source4 contains email correspondence clarifying the license terms.
+# Fedora opts to ignore the optional part of clause 2 and treat that code as 2 clause BSD.
+Source4: Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
+
 # $ git diff-tree -p mesa-9.0.1..origin/9.0 > `git describe origin/9.0`.patch
 Patch0: mesa-9.0.1-22-gd0a9ab2.patch
 
@@ -309,6 +314,8 @@ sed -i 's/\<libdrm_nouveau\>/&2/' configure.ac
 %endif
 %endif
 
+cp %{SOURCE4} docs/
+
 %build
 
 autoreconf --install  
@@ -434,7 +441,7 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 
 %files dri-filesystem
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc docs/COPYING
+%doc docs/COPYING docs/Mesa-MLAA-License-Clarification-Email.txt
 %dir %{_libdir}/dri
 
 %files libglapi
@@ -574,6 +581,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
 %endif
 
 %changelog
+* Tue Jan 15 2013 Tom Callaway <spot at fedoraproject.org> 9.0.1-4
+- clarify license on pp_mlaa* files
+
 * Thu Dec 20 2012 Adam Jackson <ajax at redhat.com> 9.0.1-3
 - mesa-9.0.1-22-gd0a9ab2.patch: Sync with git
 - Build with -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions, modest size and speed win