(Summary of previous discussion: beignet 1.0+ contains 2 files based on
gpuocelot[0], under a license that is not allowed in Debian[1,2], and is
possibly LGPL-incompatible enough to prohibit distribution of beignet
binaries[1,4]. Current gpuocelot[3] has a new top-level LICENSE notice
without the problematic clause, but also still has ocelot/COPYING with
it[4], making its actual license unclear.)
I investigated the possibility of packaging gpuocelot itself, both in
the hope that gpuocelot's authors would be more likely to agree to
fix/clarify the license for its own benefit than for beignet's, and
because "freeing CUDA" actually looked interesting (I had not previously
been aware of gpuocelot's existence), but it appears that this is
neither practical nor relevant to the license issue:
-gpuocelot only replaces the CUDA driver/core runtime (with one that can
use CPUs or AMD GPUs instead of Nvidia GPUs), and continues to need
nvidia-cuda-toolkit's compiler and library (and actually includes a few
non-free CUDA headers), so would not be allowed in Debian main whatever
its license.
-gpuocelot is semi-abandoned, requiring old versions of several of its
dependencies, including nvidia-cuda-toolkit <=5 [5]; hence, it would be
uninstallable in sid.
[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/04/msg00029.html
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/04/msg00030.html
[2] https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq part 12p
[3] https://github.com/gtcasl/gpuocelot
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/04/msg00031.html
[5]
https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escaped_fragment_=topic/gpuocelot/a57nm5lQ1KE#!topic/gpuocelot/a57nm5lQ1KE
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5555201c.1020...@zoho.com
