Re: [dev] regarding surf and cookie handling

From: Connor Lane Smith <>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:27:32 +0000


I don't know about the cookie handling in surf, but I'm sure there's a
reason. Perhaps someone more involved with surf can explain.

On 21 February 2012 19:07, Calvin Morrison <> wrote:
> After posting here for the first time, I was met with hostile comments
> by Christoph. It is a little bit upsetting when someone attacks
> something you work on (be it a good or bad project). It was rather
> uncalled for. I suppose it shows the attitude of the list.

No, Christoph is generally known for being a troll, playful or
otherwise. And although troll hostility can get annoying, suddenly
talking about Bolshevism is obviously tongue-in-cheek.

On 21 February 2012 18:34, Calvin Morrison <> wrote:
> Yes the licensing is whatever. I don't really care this isn't intended
> for any purpose other than personal use. I will continue to use
> improper licensing practices until someone decides to take legal
> action against me.

On the other hand, from a developer's point of view, you have to
realise that this isn't going to inspire friendly responses. Our
licenses are quite clear, while yours are not. You claim that you have
used surf code in the README, and then claim in sb.c that you have not
"because of the damned MIT/X license". There seems to be some
confusion here, so let me summarise our licensing: if you use our
code, you must attribute it to us in your LICENSE file. However, MIT
is *not* copyleft, so you can mix it with GPL code -- as long as you
attribute us in your LICENSE file!

So although I don't necessarily agree with the trolls, you have to
understand that the attitude "I've written an alternative to surf,
used surf code, relicensed it under GPL, and then ignored your own
very permissive license," may be taken with some offense.

Received on Tue Feb 21 2012 - 20:27:32 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 21 2012 - 20:36:04 CET