[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gpuocelot / beignet license problem

(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

Reply to: