Website improvements
by James Bursa
The website is due for improvements in content, navigation, and design. I
think we should start by figuring out the aims of visitors of the site:
- a non-user who wants to know what NetSurf is and why he should get it
- a non-user who wants to install NetSurf
- a user who wants to upgrade to the latest version
- a user who wants to report a bug
- a user who wants to contribute in some way
- a user who needs help or documentation
- a webmaster who's seen NetSurf in their log and wants to know what it is
- a user or web designer who wants to know which standards NetSurf supports
- a new developer who would like to get the source and contribute
- a new developer on some device or platform who's looking for a browser to
port
- someone who wants to contact us
Any more that I've missed?
Current content of the site is:
- front page (currently summary, news, links)
- news archive
- screenshots
- downloads
- development information
- documentation
- development progress
- licence
- mailing lists links
- development plan
- themes
James
--
James Bursa, NetSurf developer http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
15 years, 4 months
1.1 patches
by John-Mark Bell
Courtesy of James, here's a list of the patches available for merge into
the stable branch for a 1.1 release next week:
---8<----
3297 tlsa Treat CENTER like other browsers do.
3298 tlsa More alignment changes.
3299 rjek Tweak default hotlist entries to be more up-to-date
3300 bursa Switch version to "2.0 (Development)".
3304 jmb Fix bugs in charset detection. Strip BOM from parser
input, as it confuses libxml. Ignore
non-ASCII-compatible charsets declared in meta tag (the
parser defaults to 8
3305 rjek Add UNIX-specific fetch_filetype() support. Uses
/etc/mime.types by default, but can build minimal
mappings if it doesn't exist. New code allows file://
directory list
3306 dsilvers Add a -v option to enable debug logging. Pass -v by
default to the RO runimage.
3307 dsilvers Remove the netsurf/ from the include paths and
rationalise use of <> vs "" in includes NetSurf includes
are now done with ""s and other system includes with
<>s as C i
3311 adrianl Fix interaction between failed drag save and pointer
tracking (including page drag scrolling)
3312 adrianl Overlooked warnings
3317 rjek Stop filename.c using d_type member in dirent struct, as
this is completely and utterly unportable. Not even
Linux has it anymore.
3318 rjek Check return value of stat() in filename.c and report
oddness using LOG
3322 rjek Add some debugging LOG calls to GTK gui_window_destroy
3323 rjek Fix destruction of nsgtk windows involving frames, fixes
crashes on sites such as news.bbc.co.uk
3324 rjek Whoops - remove legacy line calling function that
nolonger exists.
3325 rjek Simplify nsgtk periodic reflow. Should hopefully help in
flicker.
3328 rjek Don't bother resizing/repositioning frames when the core
asks us to if it would result in no difference.
Hopefully this fixes nsgtk consuming all available CPU
on site
3330 dsilvers Merge scheme switcher branch in.
3331 dsilvers Remove a time consuming LOG(()) and add some whitespace
to help me think
3332 jmb Warning fixes.
3333 dsilvers Add debug about ring sizes. Ensure we dispatch queued
jobs when a job is freed.
3334 dsilvers Reflow useragent.c to be 8 char indent. Also rename
build_user_agent to user_agent_build_string so that all
useragent.c starts user_agent_*
3335 jmb Fix UTF-16LE BOM detection _again_
3337 jmb Fix cookie domain matching in unverifiable
transactions. Minor tidying.
---8<----
My view is that all but the following patches can be merged across:
3297, 3298:
There's still some dispute as to the correct behaviour wrt the handling
of <center>. Other browsers don't appear to agree, either (from the
limited testing that I've seen).
Michael: Can we have some evidence as to existing behaviours, please?
3300:
Version numbering change for development branch. This should be
self-explanatory.
3330, 3331, 3332, 3333, 3334:
Scheme switcher changes. I'd like these to have rather more testing before
ending up in a stable build.
In addition (and before it gets forgotten) there's also:
3314 bursa Work around for broken PS printer driver
from RUfl.
All the above gives a changeset for the RISC OS build as follows:
+ Fix potential security flaw in cookie handling in unverifiable
transactions.
+ Fix dragging-related crash.
+ Fix printing to PostScript printers on <>RO5.
+ Fix charset detection issues.
+ Logging is now controlled by "-v" on the command line (on by default)
John.
15 years, 7 months
Re: NetSurf Licence
by John-Mark Bell
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Michael Drake may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
>> 2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
>> the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3
>> has been recently released. This may be found at
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
> [snip]
>> On point 2, we require clarification (see above) from:
>>
>> Rob Jackson
>> Darren Salt
> [snip]
>
> What I want to avoid is unredistributability caused by linkage with libraries
> licensed under GPLv3 (or later), should such linkage be necessary due to lack
> of suitable libraries licensed under GPLv2 (or later).
>
> For that reason, relicensing SHOULD be allowed.
Further, via IRC:
| <@tlsa> _ds_: can you clarify that by "SHOULD" you meant "I want the
| relicencing clause but I wouldn't object if it isn't preasent"?
| < _ds_> It's sort of "I object, but not quite strongly enough."
Thanks for this.
John.
15 years, 8 months
Fwd: NetSurf Licence
by Michael Drake
------ Forwarded message ------
From: S. Voortman <svoortman(a)thecoast.tmfweb.nl>
Date: 17 Jul 2007 1250
Subject: NetSurf Licence
Hoi Michael,
Op Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:17:18 +0200 schreef Michael Drake
<mike(a)smoothartist.com>:
> 1) Formalise GPL version 2 as being the GPL version which NetSurf is
> licensed under. This may be found at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
>
> 2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
> the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version
> 3 has been recently released. This may be found at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> 3) Include a specific exemption to permit linking against OpenSSL.
>
> 4) License the Messages files, window templates and documentation
> under the GPL, as per proposals 1-3.
>
> On point 2, please indicate one of the following:
>
> a) Yes, I want the relicensing clause and would object if
> it's not present.
>
> b) Yes, I'd like the clause but am not sufficiently bothered
> to raise an objection if there is none.
>
> c) No, I'd prefer the clause wasn't present but am not
> sufficiently bothered to raise an objection if it is present.
>
> d) No, I do not want the relicensing clause at all and would
> object if it were present.
>
> e) I don't mind either way.
> On points 1, 2, 3 and 4, we require responses from:
> Gerard van Katwijk
> Simon Voortman
We only translated the Message file into Dutch. I don't mind about making
that public domain, and I also don't mind about licensing it, so please do
with it as you see fit and under which license you choose.
Cheers,
Simon.
------ End forwarded message ------
--
Michael Drake (tlsa)
http://www.smoothartist.com/
15 years, 8 months
Fwd: NetSurf Licence
by Michael Drake
------ Forwarded message ------
From: Philip Pemberton <philpem(a)gmail.com>
Date: 15 Jul 2007 1535
Subject: NetSurf Licence
Michael Drake wrote:
> (Sending via web site contact form because I don't think I know your e-mail address.)
philpem(a)philpem.me.uk (it was philpem(a)dsl.pipex.com, but that account has now
faded into the ether).
I actually responded to JMB's original message, but his server bounced my
message back with a "550 Verification failed for <philpem(a)philpem.me.uk>,
Unrouteable address" error. $DEITY knows what's wrong, but it's not a problem
on my end (I can't find anything wrong with the mail or DNS config on my
server at least, and his domain is the only one that's ever bounced valid
mail, citing a domain verification failure).
I had the same problem replying to your message - here's the bounce
headers. Perhaps you'd like to have a word with your server admin?
mike(a)smoothartist.com
SMTP error from remote mail server after MAIL
FROM:<philpem(a)philpem.me.uk> SIZE=3924:
host mx.pepperfish.net [87.237.62.181]: 550-Verification failed
for <philpem(a)philpem.me.uk>
550-Unrouteable address
550 Sender verify failed
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <philpem(a)philpem.me.uk>
Received: from [87.194.114.122] (helo=wolf.philpem.me.uk)
by executor.castlecore.com with esmtp (Exim 4.66)
(envelope-from <philpem(a)philpem.me.uk>)
id 1I9qs1-0001UY-Gn
for mike(a)smoothartist.com; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:17:49 +0100
Received: from [10.0.0.8] (cheetah.homenet.philpem.me.uk [10.0.0.8])
by wolf.philpem.me.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BD8144A77F
for <mike(a)smoothartist.com>; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:17:07 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <46995946.7000204(a)philpem.me.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:16:22 +0100
From: Philip Pemberton <philpem(a)philpem.me.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Drake <mike(a)smoothartist.com>
Subject: Re: NetSurf Licence
References: <E1I9phL-00006l-2u(a)executor.castlecore.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1I9phL-00006l-2u(a)executor.castlecore.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 1) Formalise GPL version 2 as being the GPL version which NetSurf is
> licensed under. This may be found at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
GPLv2 is fine by me. It's the version I think most people are familiar with (me
included).
> 2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
> the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3
> has been recently released. This may be found at
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
I haven't got any opinions either way on adding the "... or any future
version of the GPL" clause, though I'm a little apprehensive in that if the
FSF add something that I really don't agree with, I'm kinda stuck. The code I
submitted was minor, and I'm pretty sure most of it is long gone, but I'm
ceding judgement to the project leaders here. Basically, this is a "do what
'The Team' think is best for the project".
> 3) Include a specific exemption to permit linking against OpenSSL.
I can't see any problem with adding an exemption for OpenSSL.
Thanks.
------ End forwarded message ------
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
15 years, 8 months
NetSurf licensing
by John-Mark Bell
Hi,
You are receiving this email because our records suggest that you have
contributed to the NetSurf project (http://www.netsurf-browser.org) in
some way or other in the past.
NetSurf's licensing status is currently somewhat messy. Currently, we
state the following:
"Licensed under the GNU General Public License"
There are a number of problems with this:
1) There is no formal statement as to which version of the GPL NetSurf
is licensed under (although a copy of GPL version 2 is included in
distributed versions).
2) It is unclear whether the end user has been granted the right to
relicense the software under future versions of the GPL (i.e. whether
the common "...or (at your option) any later version." wording from
the standard GPL boilerplate applies), We do not use the standard GPL
boilerplate within the source code.
3) In order to provide HTTPS support, NetSurf is linked against OpenSSL.
The OpenSSL licence is incompatible with the GPL. See
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2 for more details on
this.
4) The translatable Messages files, window templates and documentation
have no explicit licensing information.
5) There is no explicit licensing of related artwork.
Given the above, I propose the following:
1) Formalise GPL version 2 as being the GPL version which NetSurf is
licensed under. This may be found at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3
has been recently released. This may be found at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
3) Include a specific exemption to permit linking against OpenSSL.
4) License the Messages files, window templates and documentation under
the GPL, as per proposals 1-3.
5) License supporting artwork under either the GPL (as per proposals 1-3)
or some less restrictive licence such as MIT
(http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php).
The rationale for the above is as follows:
+ There is a move to get the GTK version of NetSurf included in the
Debian package repository. To do this requires licensing clarity.
The lack of an exemption for linking against OpenSSL will result in
immediate rejection of a NetSurf package for Debian. See the top item
in the table on http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html and
http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html for further
details on this.
+ OpenSSL is not part of the base OS on RISC OS, either, so an
exemption is required on that platform also.
+ Licensing the documentation, window templates and Messages files in
the same way as the rest of the source code would be sensible. All
are directly related to the source code and are unlikely to be used
elsewhere.
+ The source code is licensed under the GPL, so using the same licence
for the artwork avoids confusion. However, it is unclear as to what
the "preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" is in
this case. Additionally, it imposes constraints upon those using the
artwork (e.g. to illustrate articles on a website). They would have
to distribute the preferred source format for the artwork as well as
the version used for illustrative purposes, which seems an
unnecessary burden. It would, however, mean that any changes that are
made by third parties are available in the original format for others
to use.
Any other licence used for artwork would need to be GPL compatible
(else the artwork could not be distributed with the software). This
rules out any of the Creative Commons licences, or the Free Art
Licence, which would have been the obvious choices. Therefore, I have
proposed a simple attribution licence: MIT. [Important note:
"Software" does not imply "program", so it's perfectly acceptable to
use this licence for artwork]
Please direct any replies you may have to the developers' mailing list --
netsurf-dev(a)netsurf-browser.org.
It is important that replies are received from everyone as, without them,
the current situation will remain indefinitely (or until such time as the
contributions of non-respondents are removed -- obviously, we'd rather
this didn't happen). Therefore, please do respond at your earliest
convenience.
On proposals 1, 2, and 3, I require replies from the following people, who
have contributed code to NetSurf:
Kevin Bagust
John-Mark Bell
James Bursa
Matthew Hambley
Rob Jackson
Rob Kendrick
Jeffrey Lee
Adrian Lees
Phil Mellor
Philip Pemberton
Vince Sanders
Darren Salt
Daniel Silverstone
Andrew Timmins
John Tytgat
Chris Williams
Richard Wilson
On proposals 1, 2, 3, and 4, I require responses from the following
people, who have contributed Messages files and documentation:
Sebastian Barthel
Bruno D'Arcangeli
Michael Drake
Gerard van Katwijk
Jrme Mathevet
Simon Voortman
On proposal 5 (and 1-3, if applicable), I require responses from the
following people, who have contributed artwork:
John-Mark Bell
Michael Drake
Andrew Duffell
Richard Hallas
Phil Mellor
Thanks,
John.
15 years, 8 months
RE: NetSurf licensing (Messages, Text)
by John-Mark Bell
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Sebastian Barthel wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:12:20 +0100 (BST), "John-Mark Bell"
> <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> said:
>> Thanks for this. Does option 2 in the list at
>> http://vlists.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/20...
>> best represent your position on relicensing?
>
> Yes - I think such a clause should be included. A webbrowser is a
> program wich shows foreign content (pictures, films, texts) and so it
> has something in common with a DVD-Player. And as far as I know DVDs and
> DRMs are one of the main reasons for the new v3 GPL. Therefore I think
> the option to change the licence to v3 and any later version should be
> given.
> I will not protest if there isn't one.
Ok. Thankyou for the clarification.
John.
15 years, 8 months
Re: NetSurf licensing
by John-Mark Bell
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Phil Mellor wrote:
> On 7/5/07, John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for this. WRT proposal 2 (above), could you clarify your position,
>> please? (The proposal wasn't worded at all well and I don't want to
>> misrepresent you). A list of choices can be found at
>> http://vlists.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/20...
>> There's one additional option:
>>
>> 5. I don't mind either way.
>
> ^ This. I don't know much about GPL3, so I'm happy for people who've
> studied it in more depth to have a big old argument if necessary, and
> for me to nod and agree with their decision. :)
Thanks,
John.
15 years, 8 months
SSL & licencing
by John-Mark Bell
Our current SSL support is provided through OpenSSL. We don't currently
have a licence exception for linking against OpenSSL. This will be an
issue for the Debian package, at the very least -- see
http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
and
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2
There are a number of ways around this:
1) Add an appropriate exception for OpenSSL to the licence. AFAICS, this
will require getting the consent of all contributors.
Advantages:
+ No code changes needed, so we know it works
Disadvantages:
+ Means contacting all contributors -- not all of whom are subscribed to
this mailing list. Do we even have contact details for some of them?
2) Moving to another SSL implementation which doesn't have licensing
issues (e.g. GNU TLS or yassl).
Advantages:
+ No need to find contact details for people.
+ Potential for code size/speed improvements through use of a different
SSL implementation (both yassl and GNU TLS are significantly smaller
than OpenSSL)
+ GNU TLS has a far nicer API -- it's even documented <fx: dies of shock>
Compare, for example, the mess in fetch_curl_done() related to
certificate chain inspection with print_x509_certificate_info() here:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/manual/html_node/X_002e509-certificate...
Disadvantages:
+ Requires code changes. (possibly not in the case of yassl)
+ Yassl seems flaky, from the experimentation James and I did a while
back. It also doesn't provide the certificate inspection API.
+ GNU TLS requires changes to curl to provide access to the TLS handle.
(we'd want to push any changes here upstream, of course)
I'd appreciate some feedback here. My own view is that GNU TLS has enough
going for it that it'd be worth the migration pain.
J.
15 years, 8 months
Re: NetSurf licensing
by John-Mark Bell
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Phil Mellor wrote:
> On 7/1/07, John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
>
>> 2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
>> the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3
>> has been recently released. This may be found at
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
>
> I'm happy with these proposals.
Thanks for this. WRT proposal 2 (above), could you clarify your position,
please? (The proposal wasn't worded at all well and I don't want to
misrepresent you). A list of choices can be found at
http://vlists.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/20...
There's one additional option:
5. I don't mind either way.
Thanks,
John.
15 years, 8 months