UPnP in libpurple

Evan Schoenberg evan.s at dreskin.net
Mon Jun 30 00:04:56 EDT 2008

On Jun 29, 2008, at 11:13 PM, John Bailey wrote:

> Evan Schoenberg wrote:
>>> Can we even use libnatpmp?  Its license requires attribution for all
>>> redistributions and modifications.
>> Where do you see that?
> The license text I pasted came directly from natpmp.c in the  
> libnatpmp source
> tarball.

Indeed; I checked the same. I don't see how that license requires  
attributed for redistributions and modifications, though.

>> MiniUPnP is distributed with a 3-clause BSD license.
> It seemed to me from the thread's progression that miniupnp was not  
> the code we
> intended to use; this is why I was talking specifically about  
> libnatpmp.

*nod* I said this to lead into the next paragraph.  However, MiniUPnP  
may turn out to have a better UPnP implementation than we currently  
sport, as well.

>> libnatpmp, distributed at the same site by the same author, does not
>> include a LICENSE file.  I have emailed the author to inquire as to  
>> the
>> intended licensing and seek clarification.  I'll let the list know  
>> the
>> results.
> Sean replied to me off-list (I suspect he merely missed "reply all"-- 
> gmail
> *really* needs a reply-to-list button) and pointed out that the  
> license is the
> standard ISC license, which according to the FSF is definitely GPL- 
> compatible.
> I did not recognize the license text; this is why I questioned it.   
> Since it's a
> known compatible license, I have no issues with it now.

Excellent :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080630/44dc6a2c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Devel mailing list