Mesa license issue?

[Callum Lerwick]

Okay, so there's a Second Life bug open pointing out what appears to be
a license problem with some OpenGL headers:

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-2881

There is indeed a bunch of headers with "SGI Free Software License B"
boilerplate in them:

$ grep -l "SGI Free" /usr/include/GL/*
/usr/include/GL/glext.h
/usr/include/GL/glu.h
/usr/include/GL/glxext.h
/usr/include/GL/glxmd.h
/usr/include/GL/glxproto.h
/usr/include/GL/glxtokens.h

$ grep -l "SGI Free" /usr/include/GL/* |xargs rpm -qf|sort|uniq
mesa-libGL-devel-6.5.2-13.fc7.i386
mesa-libGL-devel-6.5.2-13.fc7.x86_64
mesa-libGLU-devel-6.5.2-13.fc7.i386
mesa-libGLU-devel-6.5.2-13.fc7.x86_64
xorg-x11-proto-devel-7.2-9.fc7.x86_64

The devel packages say they're all MIT license:

$ grep -l "SGI Free" /usr/include/GL/* |xargs rpm -qfi|grep License|
sort|uniq
Size        : 1393741                          License: MIT
Size        : 82501                            License: MIT
Size        : 872295                           License: MIT

"SGI Free Software License B" is explicitly not acceptable in Fedora:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-d8cc605dd386091c8b6be97b8a43...

I've googled up and down and I haven't found an explanation as to what
is going on. Mesa's merge review is untouched:

http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226136

Is there a reason these files don't fall under the SGI license? There's
a provision for "an alternative license" but I'm not even going to
pretend to understand the mechanics. If so, could the headers be
clarified, and an explanation made in Mesa's review? And a reply made
here? And Mesa's home page fixed? ;P

http://www.mesa3d.org/license.html

GLEW apparently had the same problem, fixed by taking headers from Mesa,
so I'm very confused as to what is going on:

http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251191

[Hans de Goede]

Callum Lerwick wrote:
>  Okay, so there's a Second Life bug open pointing out what appears
> to be
>  a license problem with some OpenGL headers:
>  
>  http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-2881
>  
>  There is indeed a bunch of headers with "SGI Free Software License B"
>  boilerplate in them:
>  
>  $ grep -l "SGI Free" /usr/include/GL/*
>  /usr/include/GL/glext.h
>  /usr/include/GL/glu.h
>  /usr/include/GL/glxext.h
>  /usr/include/GL/glxmd.h
>  /usr/include/GL/glxproto.h
>  /usr/include/GL/glxtokens.h
>  
<snip>

>  I've googled up and down and I haven't found an explanation
> as to what
>  is going on. Mesa's merge review is untouched:
>  
>  http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226136
>  
>  Is there a reason these files don't fall under the SGI license? There's
>  a provision for "an alternative license" but I'm not even going to
>  pretend to understand the mechanics. If so, could the headers be
>  clarified, and an explanation made in Mesa's review? And a reply made
>  here? And Mesa's home page fixed? ;P
>  
>  http://www.mesa3d.org/license.html
>   
This is all very much AFAIK:

These files are indeed a problem, there have been talks with SGI about freeing 
them but those have stagnated, since Mesa is a crucial piece of infrastructure, 
the current situation is being allowed as an exception to the licensing guidelines.

>  GLEW apparently had the same problem, fixed by taking headers from
> Mesa,
>  so I'm very confused as to what is going on:
>  
>  http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251191
>   
GLEW contained bits of "code" in some header files copy and pasted from the 
OpenGL reference implementation. I've replaced these with "code" from 
/usr/include/GL/gl.h and /usr/include/GL/glx.h, which are not under the
"SGI Free Software License B" / "GLX Public License" but fall for 100%
under 
Mesa's MIT license and thus are ok.

I did this because glew would not be allowed as is, the "SGI Free Software 
License B" / "GLX Public License" exception is only for Mesa and we do not
want 
to add any other software under this license to the repo.

On the contrary, we really should start working on removing/replacing the 
troublesome Mesa bits.

Regards,

Hans

[Peter Lemenkov]

2007/10/31, Callum Lerwick <seg(a)haxxed.com&gt;:
>  Okay, so there's a Second Life bug open pointing out what appears
> to be
>  a license problem with some OpenGL headers:
>
>  http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-2881 
>  $ grep -l "SGI Free" /usr/include/GL/* |xargs rpm -qfi|grep
> License|
>  sort|uniq
>  Size        : 1393741                          License: MIT
>  Size        : 82501                            License: MIT
>  Size        : 872295                           License: MIT
>
>  "SGI Free Software License B" is explicitly not acceptable in Fedora: 
Yeah! It's time to drop Mesa support from Fedora as it was already did
with openmotif!

-- 
With best regards!

[Callum Lerwick]

Update: I found this commit in Mesa's git:

http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git;a=commitdiff;h=344c3f7379a...

It appears this is fixed in Mesa 7, which is in F8, but I don't know
where this leaves F7 and whatnot, which are still shipping Mesa 6.5.x.

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 04:38 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>  Update: I found this commit in Mesa's git:
>  
>
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git;a=commitdiff;h=344c3f7379a...
>  
>  It appears this is fixed in Mesa 7, which is in F8, but I don't know
>  where this leaves F7 and whatnot, which are still shipping Mesa 6.5.x. 
I'm not sure that's even remotely legal for Mesa to have committed. The
SGI Free B license doesn't permit arbitrary relicensing, and without any
code changes, that amounts to simply stripping the copyright and license
off the old files.

Adam, do you know the details behind that commit?

~spot

[Hans de Goede]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>  On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 04:38 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > Update: I found this commit in Mesa's git:
> >
> >
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git;a=commitdiff;h=344c3f7379a...
> >
> > It appears this is fixed in Mesa 7, which is in F8, but I don't know
> > where this leaves F7 and whatnot, which are still shipping Mesa 6.5.x.
>  
>  I'm not sure that's even remotely legal for Mesa to have committed. The
>  SGI Free B license doesn't permit arbitrary relicensing, and without any
>  code changes, that amounts to simply stripping the copyright and license
>  off the old files.
>  
>  Adam, do you know the details behind that commit?
>   
I've done some research on this, the OpenGL standard has been given in the 
hands of an organization called "The Khronos Group Inc":
http://www.khronos.org/

They are now the owners of:
http://www.opengl.org/

Where the host atleast some of the involved header files:
http://www.opengl.org/registry/api/glext.h
http://www.opengl.org/registry/api/glxext.h
http://www.opengl.org/registry/api/wglext.h

With a new Khronos copyright header, these are the only files changed by the 
commit, so yes this is legit. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the whole problem.

Regards,

Hans

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 13:32 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

>  With a new Khronos copyright header, these are the only files changed
> by the 
>  commit, so yes this is legit. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the whole problem.
Nope, it doesn't.

~spot

[Tom Callaway]

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:39 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>  On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 04:38 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
>  > Update: I found this commit in Mesa's git:
>  > 
>  >
> http://gitweb.freedesktop.org/?p=mesa/mesa.git;a=commitdiff;h=344c3f7379a...
>  > 
>  > It appears this is fixed in Mesa 7, which is in F8, but I don't know
>  > where this leaves F7 and whatnot, which are still shipping Mesa 6.5.x.
>  
>  I'm not sure that's even remotely legal for Mesa to have committed. The
>  SGI Free B license doesn't permit arbitrary relicensing, and without any
>  code changes, that amounts to simply stripping the copyright and license
>  off the old files.
>  
>  Adam, do you know the details behind that commit? 
NM, it looks like SGI signed off on that change upstream when they moved
to hosting those files at Khronos.

~spot

[Anthony Green]

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>  NM, it looks like SGI signed off on that change upstream when they
> moved
>  to hosting those files at Khronos. 
Do you have a reference or link explaining this?  I'm working with the 
JOGL upstream developers on their use of SGI FreeB licensed code and 
this was their reaction to me removing JOGL from Fedora (for now)...

>  This seems like a harsh overreaction. Sun's legal team reviewed
> our 
>  use of the code covered under the SGI FreeB license and (with our
>  prodding) approved it despite potential legal exposure to Sun.
>  
>  I don't think SGI's OpenGL sample implementation has been relicensed. 
>  I just downloaded the Mesa 7 sources and there is no mention of the
>  Khronos group anywhere. The portions of code we are using (the
>  GLU tessellator and mipmap code) have as far as I know been
>  written basically once in the industry and we're not going to pull 
>  out their inclusion in JOGL. Both Mesa and XFree86 seem to be
>  comfortable including code covered by the SGI FreeB license.
>  
>  If you have a more concrete pointer regarding a relicensing of this 
>  code I'll look into it. 
Thanks,

AG

[Anthony Green]

Callum Lerwick wrote:
>  "SGI Free Software License B" is explicitly not acceptable
> in Fedora:
>  
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-d8cc605dd386091c8b6be97b8a43...
>   
Parts of jogl are licensed under this license.  I don't believe anything 
depends on jogl. I've just retired this package.

AG

[Hans de Goede]

Anthony Green wrote:
>  Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > "SGI Free Software License B" is explicitly not acceptable in Fedora:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-d8cc605dd386091c8b6be97b8a43...
>
> >
> >
>  
>  Parts of jogl are licensed under this license.  I don't believe anything 
>  depends on jogl. I've just retired this package.
>   
We might want to have jogl in the future, assuming it just includes some SGI 
licensed OpenGL header files, we might be able to replaced the encumbered parts 
like I did with glew.

Regards,

Hans

[Anthony Green]

Hans de Goede wrote:
>  We might want to have jogl in the future, assuming it just includes
> some 
>  SGI licensed OpenGL header files, we might be able to replaced the 
>  encumbered parts like I did with glew. 
I think it is more than just headers.  I'm going to talk to upstream 
about it.  I hope we can sort it out because there are some nice apps 
written on top of jogl these days (cf. 
http://code.google.com/p/worldwindrcp/ )

AG