Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add mesa-demos.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>>> From e1f288dee780b374fc2162eb39d96a50d64964c1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: =?UTF-8?q?Taylan=20Ulrich=20Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?=
>>>  <taylanbayirli@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:58:25 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: Add mesa-demos.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/gl.scm (mesa-demos): New variable.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +    ;; The package contains many source files without a license, some
>>> +    ;; instances of the expat license, and some X11 style licenses by SGI, so
>>> +    ;; we consider it to be collectively under the X11 license.
>>
>> Is there a top-level ‘LICENSE’ or ‘COPYING’ or ‘COPYRIGHT’ file?  If
>> there is, then the intent is most likely that the files without a
>> license headers are covered by whatever this top-level file says.
>>
>> If there is really no indication, that would make the software non-free.
>
> Sadly, there is no such file.
>
> Debian has it as a "source package", and has a Copyright file assembled
> for it:
>
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/m/mesa-demos/mesa-demos_8.0.1-2_copyright

Do the files without a license mentioned in the comment above appear in
Debian’s copyright file?  Or are they just removed from the Debian
package(s)?

According to <http://libreplanet.org/wiki/NONFSDG#mesademos> there are
two demos that should be removed.

> It builds the mesa-utils and mesa-utils-extra packages from this source
> package.  Do we have to do something similar?

No idea.  I would say no until there’s a need for it.

Thanks,
Ludo’.