In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John-Mark Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:[snip] > Given the above, I propose the following: > > 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 I am happy for my code (if it's still in there) to be licensed under GPLv2. > 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 I've had a quick look at the link provided above and of course it's all dense legal verbiage. Does anyone have a link to a summary of the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3? I withhold my comments until I have a better understanding of what this is about. > 3) Include a specific exemption to permit linking against OpenSSL. I am happy with this. > 4) License the Messages files, window templates and documentation under > the GPL, as per proposals 1-3. This makes sense. I am for it. > 5) License supporting artwork under either the GPL (as per proposals 1-3) > or some less restrictive licence such as MIT > (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php). Given what has been said about "preferred form" I support a more free licence and leave it in the hands of the community to choose something suitable. -- (\/)atthew )-(ambley [ Public key: C991137B ]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
