* Re: [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ?
@ 2009-02-23 15:44 99% ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Marijn Schouten (hkBst) @ 2009-02-23 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
-----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-----
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2009-02-21 15:21 [gentoo-dev] Should that file be a License ? Mounir Lamouri
2009-02-23 15:44 99% ` Marijn Schouten (hkBst)
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox