I agree with You - licensing of text, messages, documentation and their
translations should use the same license as the hole program.
GPL2 is a good choice; and it should be allowed to use another GPL
version if necessary. The permission to link against OpenSSL should be
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Andrew Duffell wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: John Duffell
> Date: Jul 3, 2007 8:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: NetSurf licensing
> To: Andrew Duffell
> Sounds fine to me, I think a clarification would be a good thing. I expect
> my contribution (however small) to be used to benefit the Netsurf project
> in whatever way the managers see fit!
Thanks for that.
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Rob Jackson wrote:
> Yes, that's fine by me on all proposals.
Thanks. Could you clarify your position on the relicensing one, please?
(this is my fault; it was badly worded).
for a list of the possible options.
There's also a 5th option in addition to the 4 listed there:
5. I don't mind either way.
This option is equivalent to an abstention.
> It would probably have been easier to delete my minute contribution
> than send this email tbh!
Well, it was going to a bunch of other people anyway, so it was no extra
On 02/07/07, John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
> 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.
> 1) Formalise GPL version 2 as being the GPL version which NetSurf is
> licensed under. This may be found at
> 2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to relicense
> software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3 has
> been recently released. This may be found at
> 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
> or some less restrictive licence such as MIT
I'm happy for my contributions to be licensed under GPL2. I have no
objection to it being relicensed under a future GPL version, nor to the
exemption to link to OpenSSL.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Kevin Bagust wrote:
> John-Mark Bell wrote:
>> 2. Yes, I'd like the clause but am not sufficiently bothered to raise an
>> objection if there is none.
> I would say 2 covers my feelings on the relicensing clause.
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Vincent Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:40:55PM +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote:
>> Vince Sanders
> I do not belive any of my work as yet is copyrightable as its mostly
> been small fixups. But regardless my stance is that GPL 2 is fine, I
> dont feel the "or later" is helpful to netsurf but do not have a
> strong enough opinion so I am happy to go with whatever is
> decided. And I did kinda assume the openssl excption had already been
> made so thats fine too ;-)
Thanks for this,