------ Forwarded message ------
From: Philip Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (it was [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Unrouteable address" error. $DEITY knows what's wrong, but it's not a problem
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?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SMTP error from remote mail server after MAIL
FROM:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> SIZE=3924:
host mx.pepperfish.net [87.237.62.181]: 550-Verification failed
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
550-Unrouteable address
550 Sender verify failed
------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from [87.194.114.122] (helo=wolf.philpem.me.uk)
by executor.castlecore.com with esmtp (Exim 4.66)
(envelope-from <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
id 1I9qs1-0001UY-Gn
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:17:07 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:16:22 +0100
From: Philip Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NetSurf Licence
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 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
GPLv2 is fine by me. It's the version I think most people are familiar with (me
included).
> 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 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.
Thanks.
------ End forwarded message ------
--
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/
