httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Wilson <>
Subject Re: LICENSE
Date Thu, 21 Sep 1995 18:51:25 GMT
> > In reply to Randy Terbush who said
> > > 
> > > /*
> > >  * Copyright (c) 1995
> > >  *      Someone or other. =
> > > 
> > >  *      Apache HTTP Server Project, All rights reserved.
> > 
> > You *CAN'T* do this.
> > 
> > I'm not going to pursue this any further. I suggest you contact
> > a lawyer, I'm sure somebody could get a quick comment from
> > someone where they work who is qualified to deal with licensing.
> > 
> > -- 
> >   Paul Richards, Netcraft Ltd.
> I fall somewhere in between Roy and Paul on this. I agree with
> Roy that we are not in a position to defend this at this time.
> I like the clarity of the license that Paul provided. The issue
> with NeXT is much more clear with Pauls version. I would *think*
> that this would apply to Walnut Creek and other similar CD
> presses as well.
> I don't think that lack of Incorporation should keep us from
> adding a more clear, concise license to the code.
> I'm voting +1 for the version I mailed to the list.

Uhh, you got me.  Which version?  If you mean Pauls Berkely-derived template
with a single individual's name in place of the 'Author' then that's one thing.
If you mean Pauls template but with 'Apache Group' [which means for shit]
as the author then that's another.  If you mean Roy F's design, a hard nosed
version of what we have already, with group attribution and only vaguely
Berkelyesque disclaimers then that is a third. [sorry Roy if I'm misquoting].

The issue is which (different) individual's name (singular) should go on the
top of these (different) files.  With the multi-layered patches we've offered,
which probably touch every file in the distribution we inherited from NCSA 1.3R,
there is no clear cut answer as to who should be considered sole author for each

If our desire is to maintain a product which is acceptable, on a legal basis,
to companies who wish to bundle it with their own kit then we must come out
and say who the copyright belongs to.  Otherwise *they*, the companies, will
not be *able* to touch it, their legal departments just won't let it happen.
Furthermore our perception of ourselves as co-authors of free software is
questionable if we're not able to ensure that the work produced is free and

If there's only a chanse that we might gain some 'Group Copyright', 
by legal incorporation of the term 'Apache Group', with a major sharholder, and
with all the devisive bullshit (and cost) that this entails then we might just
have to do go ahead and do it.

Otherwise we're just a bunch of kids hacking cool shit and not caring about
the big picture.

> Any suggested changes?

A quantum shift in mindset might be appropriate at this time. ;)


     Andrew Wilson	     URL:
Elsevier Science, Oxford   Office: +44 01865 843155    Mobile: +44 0589 616144

View raw message