In Portage media-libs/mesa has LICENSE="LGPL-2", while in reality the licensing situation of Mesa is a bit more difficult. Here's a copy-paste from http://mesa3d.sourceforge.net/license.html --8<-------------- Component Location Primary Author License ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Main Mesa code src/mesa/ Brian Paul Mesa (MIT) Device drivers src/mesa/drivers/* See drivers See drivers Ext headers include/GL/glext.h SGI SGI Free B include/GL/glxext.h GLUT src/glut/ Mark Kilgard Mark's copyright Mesa GLU library src/glu/mesa/ Brian Paul GNU-LGPL SGI GLU library src/glu/sgi/ SGI SGI Free B demo programs progs/demos/ various see source files X demos progs/xdemos/ Brian Paul see source files SGI demos progs/samples/ SGI SGI copyright RedBook demos progs/redbook/ SGI SGI copyright -------------->8-- The major problem here of course GLUT and Debian and gNewSense are already trying to solve that problem: https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?28528 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997 In Message #71 of the second linked bug Kilgard agrees that his copyright notice / license allows everybody to use, copy, modify and distribute all modifications of libglut. So we'd have to: 1) add the rest of the licenses listed here to LICENSE="" 2) figure out how to handle Kilgard's GLUT. Problem no. 1 has a pretty obvious solution. My suggestion for no. 2 would be to create a new license (e.g. Kilgard) and add a USE flag to trigger media-libs/freeglut (e.g. USE="freeglut"), if that flag was disabled, if would pull in default Kilgard's glut and with it the Kilgard license.
Please assign this to licenses@ P.S. it would be a lot nicer and easier if the Licenses team would be an option in "Assigned To" and "Component"
Assigning to maintainer, keeping licenses team in CC.
Eee what should I as maintainer do? I have no idea about licensing stuff? :)
The maintainer is responsible for setting the LICENSE variable in the ebuild correctly.
Created attachment 244903 [details] Kilgard license (In reply to comment #0) > Problem no. 1 has a pretty obvious solution. Right. Can you provide a list of equivalent Gentoo license names? > My suggestion for no. 2 would be to create a new license > (e.g. Kilgard) How about attached file? > and add a USE flag to trigger media-libs/freeglut (e.g. > USE="freeglut"), if that flag was disabled, if would pull in default > Kilgard's glut and with it the Kilgard license. Why should we be jumping through such hoops? Mark Kilgard has made it quite clear that he intends this to be free software, with a license basically equivalent to "MIT" or "as-is". (In reply to comment #3) > Eee what should I as maintainer do? > I have no idea about licensing stuff? :) That's why licenses@ is in CC. :-)
This part of the debian bug clarifies the entire issue fine: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=131997#71 I've added that as the "kilgard" license, also in the @MISC-FREE license group. And adjust the ebuilds to include it. Everybody happy now?
LICENSE also updated in the x11 overlay. Closing, thanks all :)
We don't even ship the bundled glut in Mesa. This kilgard license should have never been added. Further, the bundled glut has recently been removed from mesa. I'm going to kill the kilgard license and remove it from mesa's LICENSES. A lot of the other licenses listed in the original report should probably be added though.
I don't see a strong need to add further licenses. As far as I can see, it is a mix of LGPL and a bunch of MIT/X11-style licenses. All of them are LGPL-compatible, so setting LICENSE to lgpl should be pretty okay for everything.
I've corrected the LICENSE variable to LICENSE="MIT LGPL-3 SGI-B-2.0" and I'll remove the kilgard license from the tree once I figure out what to do with emul-linux-x86-opengl. Fixed.
