[gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

[gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

[Mounir Lamouri]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

-----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-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

[Mounir Lamouri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1296 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: p2pnat_license.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1986 bytes --]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

[Jeremy Olexa]

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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?

[Rémi Cardona]

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