------ 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
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?
SMTP error from remote mail server after MAIL
[126.96.36.199]: 550-Verification failed
550 Sender verify failed
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Received: from [188.8.131.52] (helo=wolf.philpem.me.uk)
with esmtp (Exim 4.66)
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)
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:16:22 +0100
From: Philip Pemberton <philpem(a)philpem.me.uk>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (Windows/20070509)
To: Michael Drake <mike(a)smoothartist.com>
Subject: Re: NetSurf Licence
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
1) Formalise GPL version 2 as being the GPL version which NetSurf
licensed under. This may be found at
GPLv2 is fine by me. It's the version I think most people are familiar with (me
2) Come to an agreement about whether to permit the user to
the software under future GPL versions. For reference, GPL version 3
has been recently released. This may be found at
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.
------ End forwarded message ------
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/