FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:21 PM
Mounir Lamouri
 
Default Should that file be a License ?

Hi,

I was writing a trivial version bump for net-voip/gnugk-2.2.8 (bug
#258518) but upstream added a file named p2pnat_license.txt (see
http://dpaste.com/123376/) This file looks to authorize gnugk project
(and users) to use p2pnat technology. gnugk is already licensed under
GPL-2 and I was wondering if this new file should be considered as
another license and if it has to be in the LICENSE line ? In this case,
should the file be added like he is in the gnugk tarball or should it be
"templatized" like most licenses ?

Thanks,
Mounir
 
Old 02-23-2009, 02:44 PM
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)"
 
Default Should that file be a License ?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mounir Lamouri wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was writing a trivial version bump for net-voip/gnugk-2.2.8 (bug
> #258518) but upstream added a file named p2pnat_license.txt (see
> http://dpaste.com/123376/) This file looks to authorize gnugk project
> (and users) to use p2pnat technology. gnugk is already licensed under
> GPL-2 and I was wondering if this new file should be considered as
> another license and if it has to be in the LICENSE line ? In this case,
> should the file be added like he is in the gnugk tarball or should it be
> "templatized" like most licenses ?
>
> Thanks,
> Mounir
>

That paste is gone/expired.

Marijn

- --
Sarcasm puts the iron in irony, cynicism the steel.

Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmixHYACgkQp/VmCx0OL2wURgCff8WSLE9PHXfO/HI+GdrE1W3J
0/kAoLpB4oFEwOx5Dk+ceo70vCueZgbk
=hKRC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 02-23-2009, 03:02 PM
Mounir Lamouri
 
Default Should that file be a License ?

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
<hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mounir Lamouri wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was writing a trivial version bump for net-voip/gnugk-2.2.8 (bug
>> #258518) but upstream added a file named p2pnat_license.txt (see
>> http://dpaste.com/123376/) This file looks to authorize gnugk project
>> (and users) to use p2pnat technology. gnugk is already licensed under
>> GPL-2 and I was wondering if this new file should be considered as
>> another license and if it has to be in the LICENSE line ? In this case,
>> should the file be added like he is in the gnugk tarball or should it be
>> "templatized" like most licenses ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mounir
>>
>
> That paste is gone/expired.
>
> Marijn
>
> - --
> Sarcasm puts the iron in irony, cynicism the steel.
>
> Marijn Schouten (hkBst), Gentoo Lisp project, Gentoo ML
> <http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-{lisp,ml} on FreeNode
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkmixHYACgkQp/VmCx0OL2wURgCff8WSLE9PHXfO/HI+GdrE1W3J
> 0/kAoLpB4oFEwOx5Dk+ceo70vCueZgbk
> =hKRC
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

I attached it to this email.


Mounir
P2Pnat Technology license (H.460.23/24)

In relation to any work derived from the Point to Point through NAT Specification
("P2Pnat Technology"), International Secure Virtual offices (Asia) Pte Ltd "ISVO"
(together with his successors and assignees) will grant a royalty-free,
non-exclusive license with reciprocity to Qualified Parties to use the P2Pnat Technology
solely to the extent necessary to implement and practice such as in compliance with the
P2Pnat Specification. As used herein, Qualified Parties means a party who has not,
does not and will not assert, in litigation or otherwise, including in licensing discussions,
any patent or other intellectual property right against ISVO of any nature. Any license to
a Qualified Party shall terminate at once if such party: (a) asserts a patent or other
intellectual property right against ISVO as set forth above; or (b) if applicable,
fails to properly implement the disclosure flag described in the P2Pnat Specification
in a truthful manner. This license also extends to cover users and furthur development
of the licensee's implementation only as far as the use does not violate the licensee's
own licensing terms and conditions, where apon a user is in breach of the licensee's license
then they shall be deemed to be breach of this license. ISVO will grant non-exclusive licenses
to Non-Qualified Parties on reasonable and reciprocal terms and conditions.


The GnuGk project (www.gnugk.org) is hereby granted non-exclusive royalty-free license of
Point to Point through NAT ("P2Pnat Technology") to be used with the GnuGk project.
Users and developers of GnuGk are hereby also granted non-exclusive royalty-free license of
P2Pnat Technology as long as the use of GnuGk and/or any derived work containing this technology
is used and/or issued under the same terms and conditions as the GnuGk project. Failure to comply
with the GnuGk license shall automatically be deemed a violation of this license.
 
Old 02-27-2009, 04:32 AM
Jeremy Olexa
 
Default Should that file be a License ?

Mounir Lamouri wrote:

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
<hkBst@gentoo.org> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mounir Lamouri wrote:

Hi,

I was writing a trivial version bump for net-voip/gnugk-2.2.8 (bug
#258518) but upstream added a file named p2pnat_license.txt (see
http://dpaste.com/123376/) This file looks to authorize gnugk project
(and users) to use p2pnat technology. gnugk is already licensed under
GPL-2 and I was wondering if this new file should be considered as
another license and if it has to be in the LICENSE line ? In this case,
should the file be added like he is in the gnugk tarball or should it be
"templatized" like most licenses ?

Thanks,
Mounir


That paste is gone/expired.


I attached it to this email.


Mounir



bump. Can anyone help out here? Is it a license or a doc?

http://dev.gentoo.org/~darkside/tmp/p2pnat_license.txt

thx.
 
Old 02-27-2009, 07:18 AM
Rémi Cardona
 
Default Should that file be a License ?

Le 27/02/2009 06:32, Jeremy Olexa a écrit :

bump. Can anyone help out here? Is it a license or a doc?


I would say it is in fact a license, but since all it seems to do is to
confirm that whatever GnuGk does under the GPLv2 is allowed, I wouldn't
necessarily put it in the license dir. But do include it in the doc dir.


Nota Bene: IANAL

Cheers,

Rémi
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:55 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org