Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#70906 - [mesa] Update license file
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Emil (xexaxo) - Sunday, 16 May 2021, 14:27 GMT
Last edited by Sven-Hendrik Haase (Svenstaro) - Wednesday, 09 March 2022, 02:08 GMT
Opened by Emil (xexaxo) - Sunday, 16 May 2021, 14:27 GMT
Last edited by Sven-Hendrik Haase (Svenstaro) - Wednesday, 09 March 2022, 02:08 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
The package lists "custom" license, which seems off. In reality - it seems like many X-related packages use "custom", while they should be MIT. Admittedly I didn't check them all. For Mesa here is an updated list: GLX client code src/glx/ SGI Free Software License B C11 thread include/c11/threads*.h Boost (permissive) emulation Everything else * MIT Bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer :-) |
This task depends upon
Closed by Sven-Hendrik Haase (Svenstaro)
Wednesday, 09 March 2022, 02:08 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: 2022-03-03: A task closure has been requested. Reason for request: Suggest closure as Mesa license is carried verbatim from upstream and that license is "MIT with notices/exceptions" (some subcomponents under other licenses) so "custom" license type is appropriate as is.
Wednesday, 09 March 2022, 02:08 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: 2022-03-03: A task closure has been requested. Reason for request: Suggest closure as Mesa license is carried verbatim from upstream and that license is "MIT with notices/exceptions" (some subcomponents under other licenses) so "custom" license type is appropriate as is.
but it's impossible to decouple from all subcomponents, some of them are under different licenses.
Therefore I'd say the current license that applies is a composite license, referred to in Arch as "custom".
I think no change is actually needed as Arch packages the Mesa distribution license taken verbatim from source.
Just my 2c. :)