Mailing List Archive

At 04:19 PM 9/25/95 BST, you wrote:
>> I've been away for a week and am just going through my email backlog
>> of 1000 messages.... I doubt I'll finish it before next year... so did anyone
>> take votes on the patches? Is there a new release out? Basicly what did
>> I miss?
>
>Read your email backlog ;)
>
>> <Aram>

Okay, here is what I have so far:

+1 for the copyright stuff.. I agree. I'm not sure why you guys are macking
this so hard, but hey, if you want to play with it that's fine by me. I
would have
just grabed the GNU leftcopy stuff, and stuck it somewhere. It works for
everyone else in the freeworld.

+1 on going on with 1.0

-1 on including the OS/2 stuff. I think we can release it but not as a
supported
release.

That's all I have read so far... unfortunatly as soon as I get the time to read
20 messages, there are 5 more in my in-basket. Whoever said email would
make your life easier lied like a RUG!

<Aram>
--
Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org

At 05:26 PM 9/25/95 BST, you wrote:
>Aram:
>> +1 for the copyright stuff.. I agree. I'm not sure why you guys are macking
>> this so hard, but hey, if you want to play with it that's fine by me. I
>> would have
>> just grabed the GNU leftcopy stuff, and stuck it somewhere. It works for
>> everyone else in the freeworld.
>
>Er, well, not everyone.

Hmm.. I haven't seen any problems with it. Anyway.... we've decided
to do our own, so I guess I'll leave it alone, since I know next to nothing
about copyright laws.

>
>> +1 on going on with 1.0
>>
>> -1 on including the OS/2 stuff. I think we can release it but not as a
>> supported
>> release.
>
>Well, someone would support it, *it* most preferrably being a 'module'
>or plug in library which implemented Apache's environment-specific bits
>and pieces for OS2/Warp. This means that a similar layer of abstraction
>would be needed to put all the UNIX specific mumbo-jumbo in one 'file'.
>I dunno if we all want to support OS2/Warp (I dont/cant) but there's no
>reason why we couldn't look into making it easier for someone else to use
>an apache common-core with environment-specific libraries.

I'm not actually worried about it being supported, rather worried that it might
introduce new bugs into the software.

<Aram>
--
Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org

Aram wrote,

> so I guess I'll leave it alone, since I know next to nothing
> about copyright laws.

that didn't seem stop anyone else from commenting :-)

> I've been away for a week and am just going through my email backlog
> of 1000 messages.... I doubt I'll finish it before next year... so did anyone
> take votes on the patches? Is there a new release out? Basicly what did
> I miss?

Read your email backlog ;)

> <Aram>

Ay.

Aram:
> +1 for the copyright stuff.. I agree. I'm not sure why you guys are macking
> this so hard, but hey, if you want to play with it that's fine by me. I
> would have
> just grabed the GNU leftcopy stuff, and stuck it somewhere. It works for
> everyone else in the freeworld.

Er, well, not everyone.

> +1 on going on with 1.0
>
> -1 on including the OS/2 stuff. I think we can release it but not as a
> supported
> release.

Well, someone would support it, *it* most preferrably being a 'module'
or plug in library which implemented Apache's environment-specific bits
and pieces for OS2/Warp. This means that a similar layer of abstraction
would be needed to put all the UNIX specific mumbo-jumbo in one 'file'.
I dunno if we all want to support OS2/Warp (I dont/cant) but there's no
reason why we couldn't look into making it easier for someone else to use
an apache common-core with environment-specific libraries.

> That's all I have read so far... unfortunatly as soon as I get the time to read
> 20 messages, there are 5 more in my in-basket. Whoever said email would
> make your life easier lied like a RUG!

Indeed.

> <Aram>

Ay.

>
> At 05:26 PM 9/25/95 BST, you wrote:
> >Aram:
> >> +1 for the copyright stuff.. I agree. I'm not sure why you guys are macking
> >> this so hard, but hey, if you want to play with it that's fine by me. I
> >> would have
> >> just grabed the GNU leftcopy stuff, and stuck it somewhere. It works for
> >> everyone else in the freeworld.
> >
> >Er, well, not everyone.
>
> Hmm.. I haven't seen any problems with it. Anyway.... we've decided
> to do our own, so I guess I'll leave it alone, since I know next to nothing
> about copyright laws.

As I understand it, the problem with the GNU license is that it effectively
prevents the inclusion of proprietary code, coz you _have_ to publish the code
if you publish the binary. This would presumably also make SSL impossible.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

BTW, on the copyright side ... one thing nags at me. It no longer says that
Apache must be free.

>
> >
> >> +1 on going on with 1.0
> >>
> >> -1 on including the OS/2 stuff. I think we can release it but not as a
> >> supported
> >> release.

Presumably with the intention of supporting it in 1.0.x?

<snip>

--
Ben Laurie Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435
Freelance Consultant Fax: +44 (181) 994 6472
and Technical Director Email: ben@algroup.co.uk (preferred)
A.L. Digital Ltd, benl@fear.demon.co.uk (backup)
London, England.

[.Note for the paranoid: "fear" as in "Fear and Loathing
in Las Vegas", "demon" as in Demon Internet Services, a
commercial Internet access provider.]

At 09:13 AM 9/26/95 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> At 05:26 PM 9/25/95 BST, you wrote:
>> >Aram:
>> >> +1 for the copyright stuff.. I agree. I'm not sure why you guys are
macking
>> >> this so hard, but hey, if you want to play with it that's fine by me. I
>> >> would have
>> >> just grabed the GNU leftcopy stuff, and stuck it somewhere. It works for
>> >> everyone else in the freeworld.
>> >
>> >Er, well, not everyone.
>>
>> Hmm.. I haven't seen any problems with it. Anyway.... we've decided
>> to do our own, so I guess I'll leave it alone, since I know next to nothing
>> about copyright laws.
>
>As I understand it, the problem with the GNU license is that it effectively
>prevents the inclusion of proprietary code, coz you _have_ to publish the code
>if you publish the binary. This would presumably also make SSL impossible.
>Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>BTW, on the copyright side ... one thing nags at me. It no longer says that
>Apache must be free.

Hmm.. good point. But would be changing the code, or creating their own
modules. We don't want others creating modules, putting it in with our code
and re-disterbuting it, do we? So we can include that any modifications has
to be disterbuted seperately. IMHO That is.

>
>>
>> >
>> >> +1 on going on with 1.0
>> >>
>> >> -1 on including the OS/2 stuff. I think we can release it but not as a
>> >> supported
>> >> release.
>
>Presumably with the intention of supporting it in 1.0.x?

Correct.

--
Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org

Aram wrote,

> Hmm.. good point. But would be changing the code, or creating their own
> modules. We don't want others creating modules, putting it in with our code
> and re-disterbuting it, do we? So we can include that any modifications has
> to be disterbuted seperately. IMHO That is.

I think some of us have come to the conclussion that's it's
pointless trying to impose any restrictions on what can and can't
be done with apache outside of this group. The current license patch
basically says what we'd *like* others to do, nothing more and nothing less.

I see no need to make any more changes.