From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LcvLc-0004to-AF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:33:20 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A57D5E034F; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mta-w3.tc.umn.edu (mta-w3.tc.umn.edu [134.84.119.32]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F0A2E034F for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.110] (c-71-63-157-77.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [71.63.157.77]) by mta-w3.tc.umn.edu (UMN smtpd) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:33:16 -0600 (CST) X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] c-71-63-157-77.hsd1.mn.comcast.net [71.63.157.77] #+TS+AU+HN Message-ID: <49A77B0B.6040902@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:32:59 -0600 From: Jeremy Olexa User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090113) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ? References: <49A01BEC.8080700@gmail.com> <49A2C476.6070807@gentoo.org> <3201269c0902230802o69b992b5h44510cb88fb059b2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3201269c0902230802o69b992b5h44510cb88fb059b2@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2cc6ee1a-68e1-49ec-8a03-c87e65d9ff1f X-Archives-Hash: a0db757e978cfc35cbcc4d56f2428208 Mounir Lamouri wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) > 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.