Fwd: NetSurf Licence
by Michael Drake
------ Forwarded message ------
From: Andrew Timmins <atimmins(a)blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 01 Aug 2007 1240
Subject: NetSurf Licence
Hi Michael,
Yep, I agree to all Issues.
Thanks,
Andy.
Michael Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry to keep pestering you all but we still need replies from the
> following people:
>
> People Issues we need a response for
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Stefaan Claes 1, 2, 3
> Andrew Timmins 1, 2, 3
> Bruno D'Arcangeli 1, 2, 3, 4
> Gerard van Katwijk 1, 2, 3, 4
> Jerome Mathevet 1, 2, 3, 4
> Rob Jackson 2 (see note)
>
>
> Before we can release NetSurf 1.1 we need to sort out NetSurf's license.
> The following has been proposed:
>
> 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
> * SEE NOTE BELOW *
>
> 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.
>
> NOTE: 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.
>
> Please could you let us know if you agree to the proposals which are
> relevant to you and in the case of proposal 2, please choose one of 'a',
> 'b', 'c', 'd' or 'e'.
>
> For more information see the following post:
> http://vlists.pepperfish.net/pipermail/netsurf-dev-netsurf-browser.org/20...
>
> Best regards,
>
>
------ End forwarded message ------
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
14 years, 11 months
- 1
- 0
Re: NetSurf Licence
by Stefaan Claes
On 01 Aug, Michael Drake <smoothartist(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello,
[snip]
> Before we can release NetSurf 1.1 we need to sort out NetSurf's license.
> The following has been proposed:
> 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
OK
> 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
> * SEE NOTE BELOW *
AIUI those GPL licences are getting more and more complex (IMHO version 3
is overly complex). I don't see any need for an 'updated' version of GPL
version 2, so I prefer NetSurf to be released under GPL version without
the clause to permit any later versions.
i.e.
> d) No, I do not want the relicensing clause at all and would
> object if it were present.
> 3) Include a specific exemption to permit linking against OpenSSL.
OK, but I think the sooner we get rid of this, the better. It would
be nice if OpenSSL could be replaced by GNU TLS (IMHO of course).
BTW:
<quote>
7.6 Compatibility with the OpenSSL library
To ease GnuTLS' integration with existing applications, a compatibility layer
with the widely used OpenSSL library is included in the gnutls-openssl
library.
</quote>
Does this mean that the changes (to NetSurf) could be doable?
Just curious. ;-)
--
Stefaan Claes, Hove, Antwerpen, Belgium, Europe, <sclaes(a)archimedes.be>
14 years, 11 months
- 2
- 1