On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 16:40 +0100, John-Mark Bell wrote: > 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).
I strongly believe we should standardise on explicitly stating GPLv2 > 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. We should fix the heading on all files to include the full GPL boilerplate. I *STRONGLY* disagree with various of the aims of GPLv3 as it currently sits in draft form and thus I would only be happy with the removal of the 'or...later...' from the statement in each file. > 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. I firmly believe that we should be okay to link with OpenSSL so we should have an explicit statement to that end. > 4) The translatable Messages files, window templates and documentation > have no explicit licensing information. Making these GPLv2 seems to make sense. > 5) There is no explicit licensing of related artwork. Having this as CC-by-SA seems to make sense, although I am quite prepared to accept MIT for them. D. -- Daniel Silverstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
