Fwd: NetSurf Licence
tlsa at netsurf-browser.org
Tue Aug 7 00:56:02 BST 2007
------ Forwarded message ------
From: Andrew Timmins <atimmins at blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: 01 Aug 2007 1240
Subject: NetSurf Licence
Yep, I agree to all Issues.
Michael Drake wrote:
> 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
> 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
> * 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:
> Best regards,
------ End forwarded message ------
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
More information about the netsurf-dev